[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240209155644.GD3282@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:56:45 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pidfd: change pidfd_send_signal() to respect
PIDFD_THREAD
On 02/09, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 04:43:05PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > So the question: do you think we also want PIDFD_SIGNAL_SESSION_GROUP?
>
> Thought about this as well and my feeling is to wait until someone asks
> for it. Right now, we have a reason to add PIDFD_SIGNAL_PROCESS_GROUP
> because of Andy's use-case. If someone has a use-case for session groups
> then yes. Otherwise I'd just not bother?
OK, agreed.
and I forgot to mention, if you want to add PIDFD_SIGNAL_PRGP you can
look at __kill_pgrp_info().
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists