From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from [10.3.1.93] (helo=sc8-sf-list1-new.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1FZSNr-0007OG-FE for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 05:47:43 -0700 Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZSNq-0002th-L0 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 05:47:42 -0700 Received: from [198.99.130.12] (helo=saraswathi.solana.com) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1FZSNp-0002fX-7D for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 05:47:42 -0700 From: Jeff Dike Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] PATCH 0/4 - Time virtualization Message-ID: <20060428114823.GA3641@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> References: <200604131719.k3DHJcZG004674@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <20060426180110.GB8142@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <200604281333.41358.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200604281333.41358.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:48:23 -0400 To: Blaisorblade Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:33:40PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote: > > So, maybe it belongs in clone as a "backwards" flag similar to > > CLONE_NEWNS. > > I must note that currently every (?) flag allowed for unshare is also allowed > for clone, so you need to do that anyway. Currently. We are running out of CLONE_ bits - in mainline, there are three left, and two of them are likely to be used by CLONE_TIME and CLONE_UTSNAME (or whatever that turns out to be called). I'm eyeing the low eight bits (CSIGNAL) for future unshare flags, but those would be unusable in clone(). And why should there be any overlap between clone flags and unshare flags? Isn't clone(CLONE_TIME); the same as clone(); unshare(CLONE_TIME); ? 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030368AbWD1Mrq (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:47:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030373AbWD1Mrq (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:47:46 -0400 Received: from saraswathi.solana.com ([198.99.130.12]:6358 "EHLO saraswathi.solana.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030368AbWD1Mrq (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:47:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:48:23 -0400 From: Jeff Dike To: Blaisorblade Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] PATCH 0/4 - Time virtualization Message-ID: <20060428114823.GA3641@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> References: <200604131719.k3DHJcZG004674@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <20060426180110.GB8142@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <200604281333.41358.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200604281333.41358.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:33:40PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote: > > So, maybe it belongs in clone as a "backwards" flag similar to > > CLONE_NEWNS. > > I must note that currently every (?) flag allowed for unshare is also allowed > for clone, so you need to do that anyway. Currently. We are running out of CLONE_ bits - in mainline, there are three left, and two of them are likely to be used by CLONE_TIME and CLONE_UTSNAME (or whatever that turns out to be called). I'm eyeing the low eight bits (CSIGNAL) for future unshare flags, but those would be unusable in clone(). And why should there be any overlap between clone flags and unshare flags? Isn't clone(CLONE_TIME); the same as clone(); unshare(CLONE_TIME); ? Jeff