Re: For review: pidfd_open(2) manual page

[Daniel Colascione]

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:53 AM Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Michael Kerrisk:
>
> > SYNOPSIS
> >        int pidfd_open(pid_t pid, unsigned int flags);
>
> Should this mention <sys/types.h> for pid_t?
>
> > ERRORS
> >        EINVAL flags is not 0.
> >
> >        EINVAL pid is not valid.
> >
> >        ESRCH  The process specified by pid does not exist.
>
> Presumably, EMFILE and ENFILE are also possible errors, and so is
> ENOMEM.
>
> >        A  PID  file descriptor can be monitored using poll(2), select(2),
> >        and epoll(7).  When the process that it refers to terminates,  the
> >        file descriptor indicates as readable.

The phrase "becomes readable" is simpler than "indicates as readable"
and conveys the same meaning. I agree with Florian's comment on this
point below.

> > Note, however, that in the
> >        current implementation, nothing can be read from the file descripâ
> >        tor.
>
> âis indicated as readableâ or âbecomes readableâ?  Will reading block?
>
> >        The  pidfd_open()  system call is the preferred way of obtaining a
> >        PID file descriptor.  The alternative is to obtain a file descripâ
> >        tor by opening a /proc/[pid] directory.  However, the latter techâ
> >        nique is possible only if the proc(5) file system is mounted; furâ
> >        thermore,  the  file  descriptor  obtained in this way is not polâ
> >        lable.

Referring to procfs directory FDs as pidfds will probably confuse
people. I'd just omit this paragraph.

> One question is whether the glibc wrapper should fall back back to the
> /proc subdirectory if it is not available.  Probably not.

I'd prefer that glibc not provide this kind of fallback.
posix_fallocate-style emulation is, IMHO, too surprising.