On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 03:54:31PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Additionally, if this flag ever goes into clone, it mustn't be named
> CLONE_TIME, but CLONE_NEWTIME (or CLONE_NEWUTS). And given CLONE_NEWNS, it's
> IMHO ok to have unshare(CLONE_NEWTIME) to mean "unshare time namespace", even
> if it's incoherent with unshare(CLONE_FS) - the incoherency already exists
> with CLONE_NEWNS.
I wonder if they should be CLONE_* at all. Given that we are likely
to run out of free CLONE_* bits, unshare will have to reuse bits that
don't have anything to do with sharing resources (CSIGNAL,
CLONE_VFORK, etc), and it doesn't seem that nice to have two different
CLONE_* flags with the same value, different meaning, only one of
which can actually be used in clone.
It seems better to use UNSHARE_*, with the current bits that are
common to unshare and clone being defined the same, i.e.
#define UNSHARE_VM CLONE_VM
Jeff
-------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
