Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd

On 20.04.19 01:29, Daniel Colascione wrote:

The point I'm making, to be> very clear, is *NOT* that process monitoring is "not worth>

considering", but that process monitoring is subtle and complicated> enough that it ought to be considered as a standalone project,> independent of pidfds proper and of the very simple and effective> pidfd system that Joel has proposed in his patch series.

At that point I'm wondering: what pidfd is actually meant for, if not process monitoring ?

--mtx