[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4798C664.1040409@fr.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:09:56 +0100
From: Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Extend sys_clone and sys_unshare system calls API
Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2008-01-16 15:58:55, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> There's only one bit in the clone_flags left, so we won't be able
>> to create more namespaces after we make it busy. Besides, for
>> checkpoint/restart jobs we might want to create tasks with given
>> pids (virtual of course). And nobody knows for sure what else might
>> be required from clone() in the future.
>>
>> This is an attempt to create a extendable API for clone and unshare.
>> Actually this patch is a request for comment about the overall
>> design. If it will turn out to "look good", then we'll select some
>> better names for new flag and data types.
>>
>> 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:
>>
>> struct long_clone_arg {
>> int size;
>> };
>
> Ugly as night, I'd say. (Al said it better). What about just adding
> clone2 syscall, that takes u64?
yes but we would need more something like :
long sys_clone64(unsigned long flags_high, unsigned long flag_low)
if we want the syscall to be supported on 32bit arch. clone2 is also
being used on ia64 already.
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