Hi Serge, On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quoting Michael Kerrisk (mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx): >> Serge, Eric, >> >> Below is a patch to document the CLONE_NEWUTS flag that was >> added in 2.6.19. > > Thanks for writing this. Thanks for replying ;-). >> Could you please review and let me know of improvements >> or inaccuracies? >> >> By the way, does anyone know where the UTS name in the uname() >> API comes from? My best guess is that it's from Unix Timesharing >> System, but I don't know this for sure. > > That sounds plausible - I've wondered myself and even googled a > bit, but not found an answer. I suppose we might need to ask > Linus, or check one of the git repos that goes back to the early > 90s and see who created the struct. Oh -- "utsname" as a string (used in the uname() API) way predates Linux. >> diff --git a/man2/clone.2 b/man2/clone.2 >> index 7212332..80f9caf 100644 >> --- a/man2/clone.2 >> +++ b/man2/clone.2 >> @@ -341,6 +340,33 @@ configuration option and that the process be privileged >> This flag can't be specified in conjunction with >> .BR CLONE_THREAD . >> .TP >> +.BR CLONE_NEWUTS " (since Linux 2.6.19)" >> +If >> +.B CLONE_NEWUTS >> +is set, then create the process in a new UTS namespace. > > And the new UTS namespace will initially be identical as the > parent - same hostname and domainname. Yes, it's a good idea to make that clear. I've added some words to cover that. >> +If this flag is not set, then (as with >> +.BR fork (2)), >> +the process is created in the same UTS namespace as >> +the calling process. >> +This flag is intended for the implementation of control groups. > > I'm not sure Eric was sufficiently clear - this flag is intended > for the implementation of virtual server functionality and maybe > checkpoint/restart (though I'm not sure any apps will care about > being able to reset the hostname on restart :) > It's not that you have to call it 'virtual server functionality', > just that 'control groups' is definately not right. > > Maybe 'lightweight containers'? "lightweight virtual servers'? I just made it "containers". Is that okay? Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git man-pages online: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online_pages.html Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
