Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 15 May 2020 08:57:30 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Nate Karstens <nate.karstens@garmin.com>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        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 <xiaosuo@gmail.com>,
        a.josey@opengroup.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Implement close-on-fork
Message-ID: <20200515155730.GF16070@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20200515152321.9280-1-nate.karstens@garmin.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200515152321.9280-1-nate.karstens@garmin.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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?