H. Peter Anvin [hpa@xxxxxxxxx] wrote:
| On 10/14/2009 03:36 PM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
| > H. Peter Anvin [hpa@xxxxxxxxx] wrote:
| > |
| > | Overall it seems sane to:
| > |
| > | a) make it an actual 3-argument call;
| > | b) make the existing flags a u32 forever, and make it a separate
| > | argument;
| > | c) any new expansion can be via the struct, which may want to have
| > | an "c3_flags" field first in the structure.
| >
| > Ok, So will this work ?
| >
| > struct clone_args {
| > u32 flags_high; /* new clone flags (higher bits) */
| > u32 reserved1;
| > u32 nr_pids;
| > u32 reserved2;
| > u64 child_stack_base;
| > u64 child_stack_size;
| > u64 parent_tid_ptr;
| > u64 child_tid_ptr;
| > u64 reserved3;
| > };
| >
| > sys_clone3(u32 flags_low, struct clone_args *args, pid_t *pid_list)
| >
| > Even on 64bit architectures the applications have to use sys_clone3() for
| > the extended features.
|
| Yes, although I'd just make flags_high a u64.
so we allow 96 bits for flags ?
| The other thing that might be worthwhile is to have a length field on
| the structure; that way we could add new fields at the end if ever
| necessary in the future.
So:
struct clone_args {
u64 flags_high; /* new clone flags (higher bits) */
u64 reserved1;
u32 nr_pids;
u32 clone_args_size;
u64 child_stack_base;
u64 child_stack_size;
u64 parent_tid_ptr;
u64 child_tid_ptr;
};
sys_clone3(u32 flags_low, struct clone_args *args, pid_t *pid_list)
BTW, on 64-bit architectures, the flags_low would be 64-bits, but the high-
bits there would be ignored right ?
Not sure if we need a second reserved field now that we add ->clone_args_size.
Thanks,
Sukadev
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
