Dan Smith wrote: > OL> 2. What do you expect to gain by splitting the work into two > OL> separate system calls ? > > Simplicity and avoidance of the arch-specific issues, which seems to > be what hung us up on $NEW_CLONE_NAME_O'_THE_DAY. Adding a syscall, a field on current, and a set of rules how those are managed, is not simpler IMHO. Some objections in the past argued that this may cause unexpected behavior to the user or tracing/debugging tools. I'm not sure to what extend this still is, but those will come again. Finally, I disagree with the prognosis: the arch-specific issue that hung the today's-clone was introducing *a* new clone such that its args are passed incorrectly from a _technical_ point of view. The thing is, that we need a new clone anyway (if not only for the flags), and that new clone will have to get its args correctly. On the other hand, Suka fixed his arch-dependent part and we're left with agreeing on a new plausible name ... That said, if you manage to get that to mainline, I'll be fine with it (and then someone later will need to extend clone somehow). I only think that chances are slim. Oren. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
