Messages in this thread | | | From | Florian Weimer <> | Subject | Re: For review: pidfd_open(2) manual page | Date | Mon, 23 Sep 2019 22:41:19 +0200 |
| |
* Michael Kerrisk:
>>> static >>> int pidfd_open(pid_t pid, unsigned int flags) >>> { >>> return syscall(__NR_pidfd_open, pid, flags); >>> } >> >> Please call this function something else (not pidfd_open), so that the >> example continues to work if glibc provides the system call wrapper. > > I figured that if the syscall does get added to glibc, then I would > modify the example. In the meantime, this does seem the most natural > way of doing things, since the example then uses the real syscall > name as it would be used if there were a wrapper function.
The problem is that programs do this as well, so they fail to build once they are built on a newer glibc version.
> But, this leads to the question: what do you think the likelihood > is that this system call will land in glibc?
Quite likely. It's easy enough to document, there are no P&C issues, and it doesn't need any new types.
pidfd_send_signal is slightly more difficult because we probably need to add rt_sigqueueinfo first, for consistency.
| |