From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1FZVcb-000600-Oy for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:15:09 -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 1FZVca-0006f6-2X for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:15:09 -0700 From: Jeff Dike Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] PATCH 0/4 - Time virtualization Message-ID: <20060428151543.GA7397@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> References: <200604131719.k3DHJcZG004674@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <200604281333.41358.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> <20060428114823.GA3641@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <200604281554.32665.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200604281554.32665.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 11:15:43 -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 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030471AbWD1QPN (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:15:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030490AbWD1QPM (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:15:12 -0400 Received: from saraswathi.solana.com ([198.99.130.12]:4824 "EHLO saraswathi.solana.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030471AbWD1QPL (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:15:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:15:43 -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: <20060428151543.GA7397@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> References: <200604131719.k3DHJcZG004674@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <200604281333.41358.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> <20060428114823.GA3641@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <200604281554.32665.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200604281554.32665.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 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