[Devel] Re: [RFC][v8][PATCH 9/10]: Define clone3() syscall

[Matt Helsley]

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 at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers