On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 06:31:20AM +0900, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > 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. Yes. Without adopting an impractical encoding scheme it's quite unlikely a small number like 3 or 64 could exactly reflect all the changes :). I don't think that's a realistic objection though so... > clone3() is actually pretty good. I agree. Cheers, -Matt Helsley _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
