On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 06:31:20AM +0900, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/20/2009 02:44 AM, Matt Helsley wrote:
>>> |
>>> | 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,
>
> This assumption, of course, is just plain wrong. Look at the wait
> system calls, for example. However, when a small integer is used like
> that, it pretty much always reflects numbers of arguments.
>
>>> | 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)?
>>
>
> I think that doesn't exactly reflect the nature of the changes.
Yes. Without adopting an impractical encoding scheme it's quite
unlikely a small number like 3 or 64 could exactly reflect all the
changes :). I don't think that's a realistic objection though so...
> clone3() is actually pretty good.
I agree.
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
--
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
