From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Implement close-on-fork Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 08:57:30 -0700 Message-ID: <20200515155730.GF16070@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20200515152321.9280-1-nate.karstens@garmin.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=vg97Zc+yBbH72pdkZwDBNGODCPrdrEdYXXBAaIV2Oiw=; b=bzUzwrUjBws0tIpnnw6gyN9V0/ DEHrV9rVluyQUK+FkkQ1eobbrpCgDX5J1ZpBZlnmP/MjvMAlP952p1uy/0WAvi0Md/Hfiw3Ls4zih WXY29L9IuNuFXLm1+of43Qf/L+4asIjGHEWNGUXw9ez8PnkiC7FOy9huhUcn0GCg/yrl0gOON5YFU QqMg4LZ1RUNsWnTsSrkQgsKr5vKbLOqDS8YkkJ0O1BTSqd8RB5uK8jM7DtbTSsrmlMVLr8EGdpbRc Z6H+F7nNTNM/Ng9QVTpmfc+4lxFZxc4lLU2pDnH5voOjqtDjqjozbkFFhHNjAJ2s0ocUy7a2ljjOj g+gi0BIw==; Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200515152321.9280-1-nate.karstens@garmin.com> Sender: linux-alpha-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Nate Karstens Cc: Alexander Viro , Jeff Layton , "J. Bruce Fields" , Arnd Bergmann , Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Matt Turner , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Helge Deller , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Eric Dumazet , David Laight , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Changli Gao , a.josey@opengroup. On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:23:17AM -0500, Nate Karstens wrote: > Series of 4 patches to implement close-on-fork. Tests have been > published to https://github.com/nkarstens/ltp/tree/close-on-fork > and cover close-on-fork functionality in the following syscalls: [...] > This functionality was approved by the Austin Common Standards > Revision Group for inclusion in the next revision of the POSIX > standard (see issue 1318 in the Austin Group Defect Tracker). NAK to this patch series, and the entire concept. Is there a way to persuade POSIX that they made a bad decision by standardising this mess?