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 16:50:12 -0700 Message-ID: <20091019235012.GF27627@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> <20091019174405.GE27627@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> <4ADCDAA8.5080408@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ADCDAA8.5080408-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Matt Helsley , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , 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, 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 Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 06:31:20AM +0900, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 10/20/2009 02:44 AM, Matt Helsley wrote: >>> | >>> | 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, > > This assumption, of course, is just plain wrong. Look at the wait > system calls, for example. However, when a small integer is used like > that, it pretty much always reflects numbers of arguments. > >>> | 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 >> >> Perhaps clone64 (somewhat like stat64 for example)? >> > > I think that doesn't exactly reflect the nature of the changes. Yes. Without adopting an impractical encoding scheme it's quite unlikely a small number like 3 or 64 could exactly reflect all the changes :). I don't think that's a realistic objection though so... > clone3() is actually pretty good. I agree. Cheers, -Matt Helsley