Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:49:50 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.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
Message-ID: <20181120094950.11978b68@lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <1c5caa66-3c61-cb57-754a-f099200c73b2@suse.cz>
References: <20181031150625.147369-1-dancol@google.com>
        <20181105132205.138695-1-dancol@google.com>
        <20181119105426.GD28607@amd>
        <1c5caa66-3c61-cb57-754a-f099200c73b2@suse.cz>
Organization: LWN.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.

Thanks,

jon