[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ADCDAA8.5080408@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:31:20 +0900
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
CC: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
mtk.manpages@...il.com, randy.dunlap@...cle.com, arnd@...db.de,
Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Louis.Rilling@...labs.com,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, roland@...hat.com,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][v8][PATCH 9/10]: Define clone3() syscall
On 10/20/2009 02:44 AM, Matt Helsley wrote:
>> |
>> | I know I'm late to this discussion, but why the name clone3()? It's
>> | not consistent with any other convention used fo syscall naming,
This assumption, of course, is just plain wrong. Look at the wait
system calls, for example. However, when a small integer is used like
that, it pretty much always reflects numbers of arguments.
>> | AFAICS. I think a name like clone_ext() or clonex() (for extended)
>> | might make more sense.
>>
>> Sure, we talked about calling it clone_extended() and I can go back
>> to that.
>>
>> Only minor concern with that name was if this new call ever needs to
>> be extended, what would we call it :-). With clone3() we could add a
>> real/fake parameter and call it clone4() :-p
>
> Perhaps clone64 (somewhat like stat64 for example)?
>
I think that doesn't exactly reflect the nature of the changes.
clone3() is actually pretty good.
-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