Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] PATCH 0/4 - Time virtualization

[Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 03:54:31PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Additionally, if this flag ever goes into clone, it mustn't be named 
> CLONE_TIME, but CLONE_NEWTIME (or CLONE_NEWUTS). And given CLONE_NEWNS, it's 
> IMHO ok to have unshare(CLONE_NEWTIME) to mean "unshare time namespace", even
> if it's incoherent with unshare(CLONE_FS) - the incoherency already exists 
> with CLONE_NEWNS.

I wonder if they should be CLONE_* at all.  Given that we are likely
to run out of free CLONE_* bits, unshare will have to reuse bits that
don't have anything to do with sharing resources (CSIGNAL,
CLONE_VFORK, etc), and it doesn't seem that nice to have two different
CLONE_* flags with the same value, different meaning, only one of
which can actually be used in clone.

It seems better to use UNSHARE_*, with the current bits that are
common to unshare and clone being defined the same, i.e.
	#define UNSHARE_VM CLONE_VM

				Jeff