[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47FD8C17.6040203@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:40:07 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: sukadev@...ibm.com
CC: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>, 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
sukadev@...ibm.com wrote:
> 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 ?
>
No, not really. The way this work on the libc side is pretty much "use
clone64 if it exists, otherwise use clone".
-hpa
--
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