From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Helsley Subject: Re: [RFC][v8][PATCH 9/10]: Define clone3() syscall Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:44:05 -0700 Message-ID: <20091019174405.GE27627@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20091013044925.GA28181@us.ibm.com> <20091013045439.GI28435@us.ibm.com> <20091016042041.GA7220@us.ibm.com> <20091016180631.GA31036@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091016180631.GA31036-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu Cc: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, randy.dunlap-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org, Containers , Nathan Lynch , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Louis.Rilling-aw0BnHfMbSpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , kosaki.motohiro-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org, hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, Alexey Dobriyan , roland-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Pavel Emelyanov List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:06:31AM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > Michael Kerrisk [mtk.manpages-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org] wrote: > | Hi Sukadev > |=20 > | On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu > | wrote: > | > Here is an updated patch with the following interface: > | > > | > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0long sys_clone3(unsigned int flags_low, struct clo= ne_args __user *cs, > | > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0pid_t *pids); > | > > | > There are just two other (minor) changes pending to this patchset= : > | > > | > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0- PATCH 7: add a CLONE_UNUSED bit to VALID_CLONE_F= LAGS(). > | > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0- PATCH 10: update documentation to reflect new in= terface. > | > > | > If this looks ok, we repost entire patchset next week. > |=20 > | 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. >=20 > Sure, we talked about calling it clone_extended() and I can go back > to that. >=20 > 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 Perhaps clone64 (somewhat like stat64 for example)? Cheers, -Matt Helsley