On Tue, 7 May 2024 at 12:07, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> That example thing shows that we shouldn't make it a FISAME ioctl - we
> should make it a fcntl() instead, and it would just be a companion to
> F_DUPFD.
>
> Doesn't that strike everybody as a *much* cleaner interface? I think
> F_ISDUP would work very naturally indeed with F_DUPFD.

So since we already have two versions of F_DUPFD (the other being
F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC) I decided that the best thing to do is to just extend
on that existing naming pattern, and called it F_DUPFD_QUERY instead.

I'm not married to the name, so if somebody hates it, feel free to
argue otherwise.

But with that, the suggested patch would end up looking something like
the attached (I also re-ordered the existing "F_LINUX_SPECIFIC_BASE"
users, since one of them was out of numerical order).

This really feels like a very natural thing, and yes, the 'same_fd()'
function in systemd that Christian also pointed at could use this very
naturally.

Also note that I obviously haven't tested this. Because obviously this
is trivially correct and cannot possibly have any bugs. Right? RIGHT?

And yes, I did check - despite the odd jump in numbers, we've never
had anything between F_NOTIFY (+2) and F_CANCELLK (+5).

We added F_SETLEASE (+0) , F_GETLEASE (+1) and F_NOTIFY (+2) in
2.4.0-test9 (roughly October 2000, I didn't dig deeper).

And then back in 2007 we suddenly jumped to F_CANCELLK (+5) in commit
9b9d2ab4154a ("locks: add lock cancel command"). I don't know why 3/4
were shunned.

After that we had 22d2b35b200f ("F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC implementation") add
F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC (+6).

I'd have loved to put F_DUPFD_QUERY next to it, but +5 and +7 are both used.

                Linus