Re: [RFC][v8][PATCH 9/10]: Define clone3() syscall

[Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]

Michael Kerrisk [mtk.manpages-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org] wrote:
| Hi Sukadev
| 
| On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu
| <sukadev-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> wrote:
| > Here is an updated patch with the following interface:
| >
| >        long sys_clone3(unsigned int flags_low, struct clone_args __user *cs,
| >                        pid_t *pids);
| >
| > There are just two other (minor) changes pending to this patchset:
| >
| >        - PATCH 7: add a CLONE_UNUSED bit to VALID_CLONE_FLAGS().
| >        - PATCH 10: update documentation to reflect new interface.
| >
| > If this looks ok, we repost entire patchset next week.
| 
| 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,
| 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

Sukadev