On 2018-10-31, Christian Brauner <christian.brau...@canonical.com> wrote: > > I think Aleksa's larger point is that it's useful to treat processes > > as other file-descriptor-named, poll-able, wait-able resources. > > Consistency is important. A process is just another system resource, > > and like any other system resource, you should be open to hold a file > > descriptor to it and do things to that process via that file > > descriptor. The precise form of this process-handle FD is up for > > debate. The existing /proc/$PID directory FD is a good candidate for a > > process handle FD, since it does almost all of what's needed. But > > regardless of what form a process handle FD takes, we need it. I don't > > see a case for continuing to treat processes in a non-unixy, > > non-file-descriptor-based manner. > > That's what I'm proposing in the API for which I'm gathering feedback. > I have presented parts of this in various discussions at LSS Europe last week > and will be at LPC. > We don't want to rush an API like this though. It was tried before in > other forms > and these proposals didn't make it.
:+1: on a well thought-out and generic proposal. As we've discussed elsewhere, this is an issue that really would be great to (finally) solve. -- Aleksa Sarai Senior Software Engineer (Containers) SUSE Linux GmbH <https://www.cyphar.com/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
