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
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
