From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [RFC][v8][PATCH 9/10]: Define clone3() syscall Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:31:20 +0900 Message-ID: <4ADCDAA8.5080408@zytor.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091019174405.GE27627-52DBMbEzqgQ/wnmkkaCWp/UQ3DHhIser@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matt Helsley Cc: 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 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. clone3() is actually pretty good. -hpa