Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 07:23:40AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> Hi, Pavel, >> >> [Adding Ulrich] >> >>> I use the last bit in the clone_flags for CLONE_LONGARG. When set it >>> will denote that the child_tidptr is not a pointer to a tid storage, >>> but the pointer to the struct long_clone_struct which currently >>> looks like this: >> I'm probably just totally off the deep end, but something did occur to >> me: this looks an awful lot like a special version of the sys_indirect() >> idea. Unless it has been somehow decided that sys_indirect() is the >> wrong idea, might it not be better to look at making that interface >> solve the extended clone() problem as well? > > Nah, just put an XML parser into the kernel to have the form match the > contents... > > Al "perhaps we should newgroup alt.tasteless.api for all that stuff" Viro so you'd rather have new syscalls to support new clone flags ? something like : long sys_clone64(unsigned long flags_high, unsigned long flag_low) long sys_unshare64(unsigned long flags_high, unsigned long flag_low) Thanks, C. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
