Re: [PATCH -mm 0/7] execns syscall and user namespace

H. Peter Anvin
2006-07-11T19:29:09Z

Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> I would like give a strong objection to the naming. The -ve() suffix in
>> execve() isn't jettisonable; it indicates its position within a family
>> of functions (only one of which is a true system call.)
>>
>> execven() would be better name (the -n argument coming after then -e
>> argument). The library could then provide execlen(), execlpn() etc as
>> appropriate.
>
> I agree. execns() is a shortcut.
>
> This service behaves like execve() if the flag argument is 0, so I guess we
> should keep the execve- prefix. However, we could be a bit more explicit on
> the nature of this service and call it execve_unshare().
>

How about execveu()? -n looked a bit weird to me, mostly because the
"le" form would be execlen() which looks like something completely
different...

-hpa