Dave Hansen wrote: > On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 16:36 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote: >> I second the concern of running out of 64 bits of flags. In fact, the >> problem with the flags is likely to be valid outside our context, and >> general to the linux kernel soon. Should we not discuss it there >> too ? > > It would be pretty easy to make a new one expandable: > > sys_newclone(int len, unsigned long *flags_array) > > Then you could give it a virtually unlimited number of "unsigned long"s > pointed to by "flags_array". > > Plus, the old clone just becomes: > > sys_oldclone(unsigned long flags) > { > do_newclone(1, &flags); > } > > We could validate the flags array address in sys_newclone(), then call > do_newclone().
Hmm. I have an idea how to make this w/o a new system call. This might look wierd, but. Why not stopple the last bit with a CLONE_NEWCLONE and consider the parent_tidptr/child_tidptr in this case as the pointer to an array of extra arguments/flargs? > -- Dave > > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel