From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [RFC][v8][PATCH 0/10] Implement clone3() system call Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:24:30 -0700 Message-ID: <4AD5365E.5090709@zytor.com> References: <20091013044925.GA28181@us.ibm.com> <4AD511F1.7010207@zytor.com> <20091014013936.GC27627@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091014013936.GC27627-52DBMbEzqgQ/wnmkkaCWp/UQ3DHhIser@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: Matt Helsley Cc: randy.dunlap-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@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, Sukadev Bhattiprolu , 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 10/13/2009 06:39 PM, Matt Helsley wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 04:49:05PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 10/12/2009 09:49 PM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: >>> >>> This patchset implements a new system call, clone3() that lets a process >>> specify the pids of the child process. >>> >> >> A system call named clone3() taking two parameters is just too weird to >> live. No, please. > > Except we can't use clone2() because it conflicts on ia64. Care to propose > a name you would prefer? > > Also I was a bit suprised to discover there are plenty of examples where this > convention has not been followed: vm86, lseek64, and mmap2 to name a few. In > fact, of the 46 __NR_foo[[:digit:]]+, 36 break this convention on x86-32. > The -86, -64 and so on are visually obviously not a parameter count. sys_mmap2 is not user visible, and so doesn't really matter. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.