Re: [PATCH] mm: use only pidfd for process_madvise syscall

2020-05-19 Thread Minchan Kim
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:19:56AM -0700, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hi Christian, > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:45:18AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 06:20:55PM -0700, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > Based on discussion[1], people didn't feel we need to support both > > > pid an

Re: [PATCH] mm: use only pidfd for process_madvise syscall

2020-05-19 Thread Minchan Kim
Hi Christian, On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:45:18AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 06:20:55PM -0700, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Based on discussion[1], people didn't feel we need to support both > > pid and pidfd for every new coming API[2] so this patch keeps only > > pidfd. T

Re: [PATCH] mm: use only pidfd for process_madvise syscall

2020-05-19 Thread Christian Brauner
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 06:20:55PM -0700, Minchan Kim wrote: > Based on discussion[1], people didn't feel we need to support both > pid and pidfd for every new coming API[2] so this patch keeps only > pidfd. This patch also changes flags's type with "unsigned int". > So finally, the API is as follo

Re: [PATCH] mm: use only pidfd for process_madvise syscall

2020-05-18 Thread Minchan Kim
Hi Andrew, On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 04:06:56PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 18 May 2020 14:13:50 -0700 Minchan Kim wrote: > > > Andrew, I sent this patch without folding into previous syscall introducing > > patches because it could be arguable. If you want to fold it into each > > patch

Re: [PATCH] mm: use only pidfd for process_madvise syscall

2020-05-18 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 18 May 2020 14:13:50 -0700 Minchan Kim wrote: > Andrew, I sent this patch without folding into previous syscall introducing > patches because it could be arguable. If you want to fold it into each > patchset(i.e., introdcuing process_madvise syscall and introducing > compat_syscall), let

Re: [PATCH] mm: use only pidfd for process_madvise syscall

2020-05-18 Thread Minchan Kim
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 12:22:56PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > Based on discussion[1], people didn't feel we need to support both > > pid and pidfd for every new coming API[2] so this patch keeps only > > pidfd. This patch also chan

Re: [PATCH] mm: use only pidfd for process_madvise syscall

2020-05-18 Thread Suren Baghdasaryan
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM Minchan Kim wrote: > > Based on discussion[1], people didn't feel we need to support both > pid and pidfd for every new coming API[2] so this patch keeps only > pidfd. This patch also changes flags's type with "unsigned int". > So finally, the API is as follows, > >

[PATCH] mm: use only pidfd for process_madvise syscall

2020-05-15 Thread Minchan Kim
Based on discussion[1], people didn't feel we need to support both pid and pidfd for every new coming API[2] so this patch keeps only pidfd. This patch also changes flags's type with "unsigned int". So finally, the API is as follows, ssize_t process_madvise(int pidfd, const struct iovec *iov