From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu Subject: Re: [v10][PATCH] Implement clone_with_pids() syscall Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:17:54 -0800 Message-ID: <20091102201754.GA19503@us.ibm.com> References: <20091101204132.GA22116@us.ibm.com> <4AEF207F.3000904@librato.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AEF207F.3000904-RdfvBDnrOixBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Oren Laadan Cc: Containers List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Oren Laadan [orenl-RdfvBDnrOixBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org] wrote: | Hi, | | What happened to eclone() or clonex() ? Well, TBH, I don't know exactly why clone3() sucks - when there are more than two flavors of a call, numbers maybe the easiest to suffix. But if it sucks bc its cryptic about the nature of the extension, then eclone(), clonex() or even clone_extended() are about as descriptive as clone3() IMHO. Given the discussion about ckpt v. checkpoint, I would like to go with a descriptive name. Sukadev