On 02/02, Christian Brauner wrote:

quoted

TODO: change do_notify_pidfd() to use the keyed wakeups.

How does the following appended patch look?

No, no.

I think we need a simpler patch. I was going to send it as 4/4, but I'd
like to think more, _perhaps_ we can also discriminate the PIDFD_THREAD
and non-PIDFD_THREAD waiters. I'll try to make the patch(es) tomorrow or
at least provided more info.

3 notes for now:

	1. we can't use wake_up_poll(), it passes nr_exclusive => 1

	2. exit_notify() should not pass EPOLLHUP to wake_up, we do
	   not want to wake up the { .events = POLLHUP } waiters.

	3. we do not need to change __change_pid().

	   Well, _perhaps_ it can/should use __wake_up_pollfree(), but
	   I need to check if fs/select.c use "autoremove" or not.

-static __poll_t pidfd_poll(struct file *file, struct poll_table_struct *pts)
+static __poll_t pidfd_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait)
 {
 	struct pid *pid = file->private_data;
 	bool thread = file->f_flags & PIDFD_THREAD;
 	struct task_struct *task;
 	__poll_t poll_flags = 0;
 
-	poll_wait(file, &pid->wait_pidfd, pts);
+	poll_wait(file, &pid->wait_pidfd, wait);

This is correct but only cosemtic and has nothing to do with what
we discuss?

Oleg.