[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200909111334.45241.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:34:45 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
mikew@...gle.com, mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...or.com,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>, container@...ibm.com,
sukadev@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][v6][PATCH 0/9] clone_with_pids() syscall
On Friday 11 September 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Why not have something like:
>
> struct clone_struct {
> u32 size;
> u32 __reserved;
> u64 flags;
> u64 child_stack;
> u32 child_tid;
> u32 parent_tid;
> };
>
> struct clone_pid_struct {
> u32 nr;
> pid_t pids[];
> };
>
> int clone2(struct clone_struct *cs, struct clone_pid_struct *cps);
>
> If you then get passed a longer clone_struct than you know about, all is
> well IFF the tail is 0, otherwise fail with -E2BIG.
>
> If you get passed a short clone_struct, zero out the tail.
I would leave out the size argument. We can put a few reserved fields
and flag bits in there for possible extensions, but if we ever run out
of these, just define a new syscall.
Also, if you're passing a struct, why not put nr_pids in there, and
replace clone_pid_struct with a simple array? That would give us
struct clone_struct {
u64 flags;
u64 child_stack;
u32 child_tid;
u32 parent_tid;
u32 nr_pids;
u32 reserved1;
u64 reserved2;
};
int clone2(struct clone_struct *cs, pid_t *pids);
Arnd <><
--
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