Paul Menage [menage@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: | On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:38 PM, <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: | > | > But as Jon Corbet pointed out in the the thread above, it looked like | > adding a new system call has been the "traditional" way of solving this | > in Linux so far and there has been no consensus on a newer approach. | > | | I thought that the consensus was that adding a new system call was | better than trying to force extensibility on to the existing | non-extensible system call. There were couple of objections to extensible system calls like sys_indirect() and to Pavel's approach. | | But if we are adding a new system call, why not make the new one | extensible to reduce the need for yet another new call in the future? hypothetically, can we make a variant of clone() extensible to the point of requiring a copy_from_user() ? | | Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
