Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Your intention is to add the thread case to support pthreads once the >> process case is sorted out. So this is something that needs to be made >> clear. Did I miss how you plan to handle threads? > > Yeah, maybe you missed it in the commit message [2] which is based on a > discussion with Andy [3] and Arnd [4]: Looking at your references I haven't missed it. You are not deciding anything as of yet to keep it simple. Except you are returning EOPNOTSUPP. You are very much intending to do something. Decide. Do you use the flags parameter or is the width of the target depending on the flags. That is fundamental to how the system call and it's extensions work. That is fundamental to my review. Until that is decided. Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> There are a lot of fundamental maintenance issues and you can very easily get them wrong if you are not clear on the job of the file descriptor and the job of the flags argument. I want don't want new crap that we have to abandon that has a nasty set of bugs because no one wanted to think through the system call all of the way and understand the corner cases. Eric
