On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:06:31AM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > 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 Perhaps clone64 (somewhat like stat64 for example)? Cheers, -Matt Helsley _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
