Michael Kerrisk [mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote: | Hi Sukadev | | On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu | <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: | > Here is an updated patch with the following interface: | > | > long sys_clone3(unsigned int flags_low, struct clone_args __user *cs, | > pid_t *pids); | > | > There are just two other (minor) changes pending to this patchset: | > | > - PATCH 7: add a CLONE_UNUSED bit to VALID_CLONE_FLAGS(). | > - PATCH 10: update documentation to reflect new interface. | > | > If this looks ok, we repost entire patchset next week. | | I know I'm late to this discussion, but why the name clone3()? It's | not consistent with any other convention used fo syscall naming, | AFAICS. I think a name like clone_ext() or clonex() (for extended) | might make more sense. Sure, we talked about calling it clone_extended() and I can go back to that. Only minor concern with that name was if this new call ever needs to be extended, what would we call it :-). With clone3() we could add a real/fake parameter and call it clone4() :-p Sukadev _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
