Oren Laadan wrote:
>
> Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> We have one bit in the clone_flags left, so we won't be
>> able to create more namespaces after we make it busy.
>> Besides, for checkpoint/restart jobs we might want to
>> create tasks with pre-defined pids (virtual of course).
>> What else might be required from clone() - nobody knows.
>>
>> This is an attempt to create a extendable API for clone.
>>
>> I use the last bit in the clone_flags for CLONE_NEWCLONE.
>
> how about "CLONE_EXTEND" ?
>
>> When set it will denote that the child_tidptr is not a
>> pointer on the tid storage, but the pointer on the struct
>> long_clone_struct which currently looks like this:
>>
>> struct long_clone_arg {
>> int size;
>> };
>
> how about "ext_clone_arg" ?
>
> (both suggestion make the use more explicit and are more
> consistent with each other; but definitely a nit ...)
yeah I agree. The naming can be improved but let's just wait
for the patch to be sent on lkml@. I'm sure we will have
plenty of feedback.
however, the last clone flag name should be consistent with the
structure name. CLONE_NEWCLONE is not.
C.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
