Re: unhare() interface design questions and man page

["Michael Kerrisk" <mtk-manpages@gmx.net>]

Replying to myself...

> > > Do you have any further response on this point?
> > > (There was none in your last message?)
> > 
> > I personally don't think it's worth makign UNSHARE_NEWNS just because
> > it's a flag that acts differently from the other CLONE_xxx flags.
> 
> See my comments above.  (And in case it wasn't clear, I meant 
> make a complete set of UNSHARE_* flags that mirror the 
> corresponding CLONE_* flags.)

(By the way, I meant that the flag should preferably be called 
UNSHARE_NS, not UNSHARE_NEWNS -- as noted in an earlier message
in this thread, CLONE_NEWNS was itself a bad name.)

I had another thought about why using names of the form
UNSHARE_* might be worthwhile.  It just might be that in the 
future, someone might want to add a flag that has nothing
to do with clone().  I mean some flag that somehow performs
some other modification of the behaviour or unshare(), or
perhaps unshares something that isn't shared/unshared by 
clone().  (The first possibility seems more likely than 
the second.)  In that case, it would make litte sense to
name the flag(s) CLONE_xxx.

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
maintainer of Linux man pages Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 

Want to help with man page maintenance?  
Grab the latest tarball at
ftp://ftp.win.tue.nl/pub/linux-local/manpages/, 
read the HOWTOHELP file and grep the source 
files for 'FIXME'.