[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080410021523.GB28477@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:15:23 -0700
From: sukadev@...ibm.com
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, clg@...ibm.com, serue@...ibm.com,
"David C. Hansen" <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] add the clone64() and unshare64() syscalls
Jakub Jelinek [jakub@...hat.com] wrote:
| On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 03:34:59PM -0700, sukadev@...ibm.com wrote:
| > From: Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>
| > Subject: [PATCH 3/3] add the clone64() and unshare64() syscalls
| >
| > This patch adds 2 new syscalls :
| >
| > long sys_clone64(unsigned long flags_high, unsigned long flags_low,
| > unsigned long newsp);
| >
| > long sys_unshare64(unsigned long flags_high, unsigned long flags_low);
|
| Can you explain why are you adding it for 64-bit arches too? unsigned long
| is there already 64-bit, and both sys_clone and sys_unshare have unsigned
| long flags, rather than unsigned int.
Hmm,
By simply resuing clone() on 64 bit and adding a new call for 32-bit won't
the semantics of clone() differ between the two ?
i.e clone() on 64 bit supports say CLONE_NEWPTS clone() on 32bit does not ?
Wouldn't it be simpler/cleaner if clone() and clone64() behaved the same
on both 32 and 64 bit systems ?
Sukadev
--
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