[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <478F1FC0.9020709@fr.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:28:32 +0100
From: Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
drepper@...hat.com, Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Extend sys_clone and sys_unshare system calls API
Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 07:23:40AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> Hi, Pavel,
>>
>> [Adding Ulrich]
>>
>>> I use the last bit in the clone_flags for CLONE_LONGARG. When set it
>>> will denote that the child_tidptr is not a pointer to a tid storage,
>>> but the pointer to the struct long_clone_struct which currently
>>> looks like this:
>> I'm probably just totally off the deep end, but something did occur to
>> me: this looks an awful lot like a special version of the sys_indirect()
>> idea. Unless it has been somehow decided that sys_indirect() is the
>> wrong idea, might it not be better to look at making that interface
>> solve the extended clone() problem as well?
>
> Nah, just put an XML parser into the kernel to have the form match the
> contents...
>
> Al "perhaps we should newgroup alt.tasteless.api for all that stuff" Viro
so you'd rather have new syscalls to support new clone flags ? something
like :
long sys_clone64(unsigned long flags_high, unsigned long flag_low)
long sys_unshare64(unsigned long flags_high, unsigned long flag_low)
Thanks,
C.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists