On 10/13/2009 06:39 PM, Matt Helsley wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 04:49:05PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 10/12/2009 09:49 PM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: >>> >>> This patchset implements a new system call, clone3() that lets a process >>> specify the pids of the child process. >>> >> >> A system call named clone3() taking two parameters is just too weird to >> live. No, please. > > Except we can't use clone2() because it conflicts on ia64. Care to propose > a name you would prefer? > > Also I was a bit suprised to discover there are plenty of examples where this > convention has not been followed: vm86, lseek64, and mmap2 to name a few. In > fact, of the 46 __NR_foo[[:digit:]]+, 36 break this convention on x86-32. > The -86, -64 and so on are visually obviously not a parameter count. sys_mmap2 is not user visible, and so doesn't really matter. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
