On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:06:31AM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> Michael Kerrisk [mtk.manpa...@googlemail.com] wrote:
> | Hi Sukadev
> |
> | On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu
> | <suka...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> | > Here is an updated patch with the following interface:
> | >
> | > long sys_clone3(unsigned int flags_low, struct clone_args __user
> *cs,
> | > pid_t *pids);
> | >
> | > There are just two other (minor) changes pending to this patchset:
> | >
> | > - PATCH 7: add a CLONE_UNUSED bit to VALID_CLONE_FLAGS().
> | > - PATCH 10: update documentation to reflect new interface.
> | >
> | > If this looks ok, we repost entire patchset next week.
> |
> | I know I'm late to this discussion, but why the name clone3()? It's
> | not consistent with any other convention used fo syscall naming,
> | AFAICS. I think a name like clone_ext() or clonex() (for extended)
> | might make more sense.
>
> Sure, we talked about calling it clone_extended() and I can go back
> to that.
>
> Only minor concern with that name was if this new call ever needs to
> be extended, what would we call it :-). With clone3() we could add a
> real/fake parameter and call it clone4() :-p
Perhaps clone64 (somewhat like stat64 for example)?
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
