On 10/13/2009 06:39 PM, Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 04:49:05PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 10/12/2009 09:49 PM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
>>>
>>> This patchset implements a new system call, clone3() that lets a process
>>> specify the pids of the child process.
>>>
>>
>> A system call named clone3() taking two parameters is just too weird to
>> live. No, please.
>
> Except we can't use clone2() because it conflicts on ia64. Care to propose
> a name you would prefer?
>
> Also I was a bit suprised to discover there are plenty of examples where this
> convention has not been followed: vm86, lseek64, and mmap2 to name a few. In
> fact, of the 46 __NR_foo[[:digit:]]+, 36 break this convention on x86-32.
>
The -86, -64 and so on are visually obviously not a parameter count.
sys_mmap2 is not user visible, and so doesn't really matter.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
