[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0909291207410.6996@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][v7][PATCH 8/9]: Define clone2() syscall
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > We already have a syscall layer which is painful to thunk in places,
> > and this would make it much worse.
>
> syscalls are cheap as well.
> cheaper than decades of dealing with such multiplexer mess ;/
Well, I'd agree, except the clone flags really _are_ about multiplexer
issues, and the new flag woudln't really change anything.
If the new system call actually had appreciably separate code-paths, I'd
buy the "multiplexer" argument. But it doesn't really. It's going to call
down to the same basic clone functionality, and the core clone code ends
up de-multiplexing the cases anyway.
So this would not at all be like the socket calls (to pick the traditional
Linux system call multiplexing example) in that sense.
Linus
--
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