Re: [1/2,v2] fdmap(2)

[Andy Lutomirski]

> On Oct 18, 2017, at 4:35 AM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/17, Andrei Vagin <avagin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I'm agree with your points, but I think you choose a wrong set of data
>> to make an example of a new approach.
>>
>> You are talking a lot about statx, but for me it is unclear how fdmap
>> follows the idea of statx. Let's imagine that I want to extend fdmap to
>> return mnt_id for each file descriptor?
>
> fdmap() is standalone thing.
>
> Next step is to design fdinfo(2) (?) which uses descriptors from fdmap(2).
> Extending structures is done as usual: but version, add new fields to the end.
>

I very strongly disagree.  If you really want a new interface for
reading out information about other processes, design one that makes
sense as a whole.  Don't design it piecemeal. The last thing we need
is a crappy /proc alternative that covers a small fraction of use
cases.  And demonstrate that it actually has a material benefit over
fixing /proc.

Meanwhile, why not just fix /proc?