On 10/20/2009 02:44 AM, Matt Helsley wrote: >> | >> | 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, This assumption, of course, is just plain wrong. Look at the wait system calls, for example. However, when a small integer is used like that, it pretty much always reflects numbers of arguments. >> | 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)? > I think that doesn't exactly reflect the nature of the changes. clone3() is actually pretty good. -hpa _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
