From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Emelyanov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Extend sys_clone and sys_unshare system calls API Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:05:30 +0300 Message-ID: <478E1D3A.1060904@openvz.org> References: <9803.1200493420@vena.lwn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <9803.1200493420-k5ufJzZ057zk1uMJSBkQmQ@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: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Cedric Le Goater , Linux Containers , Andrew Morton , drepper-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Hi, Pavel, > > [Adding Ulrich] > >> I use the last bit in the clone_flags for CLONE_LONGARG. When set it >> will denote that the child_tidptr is not a pointer to a tid storage, >> but the pointer to the struct long_clone_struct which currently >> looks like this: > > I'm probably just totally off the deep end, but something did occur to > me: this looks an awful lot like a special version of the sys_indirect() > idea. Unless it has been somehow decided that sys_indirect() is the > wrong idea, might it not be better to look at making that interface > solve the extended clone() problem as well? We has such an idea, but as far as I know sys_indirect idea is not yet accomplished. So I risked to propose such an extension for sys_clone. If Andrew says that sys_indirect is on its way to -mm tree, then we'll surely wait and use this one for namespaces. > jon > Thanks, Pavel