Re: [PATCH v2] Document /proc/pid PID reuse behavior

From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rppt@linux.ibm.com,
	timmurray@google.com, joelaf@google.com, surenb@google.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	"Dennis Zhou (Facebook)" <dennisszhou@gmail.com>,
	Prashant Dhamdhere <pdhamdhe@redhat.com>,
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Document /proc/pid PID reuse behavior
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 17:57:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181120165732.GA13147@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181120094950.11978b68@lwn.net>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 985 bytes --]

On Tue 2018-11-20 09:49:50, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:05:21 +0100
> Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
> 
> > Why can't the documentation describe the current implementation, and
> > change in the future if the implementation changes? I doubt somebody
> > would ever rely on the pid being reused while having the descriptor
> > open. How would that make sense?
> 
> In the hopes of ending this discussion, I'm going to go ahead and apply
> this.  Documenting current behavior is good, especially in situations
> where that behavior can surprise people; if the implementation changes,
> the docs can change with it.

I'd still prefer changing from "does not" to "may not".

It is really simple change, and once we documented a behaviour, we
really should not be changing it.

Thanks,
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]