On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:33:08PM +0100, KOVACS Krisztian wrote: > > +int socketat(const struct netns_entry *ns, int domain, int type, int > > protocol) > > > > Just thinking about something, in Linux, many syscalls already exist with > > the "at" suffix to indicate a variant working based on a file descriptor > > pointing to a directory. While I'm not seeing any risk that "socketat" > > would one day exist, I think we still have time to invent a less > > conflicting > > name, what do you think ? Maybe something like ns_socket() or any other > > idea ? > > > > I'm OK with renaming it, however, as far as I know whether or not > socketat() is required as a syscall was discussed and then dropped at the > time when the API for network namespaces was considered. ( > http://lwn.net/Articles/407495/) > > We can still rename it, just to be sure, though.
Wow, I didn't think it had even already been suggested! Well maybe another way to indicate the relation and that it's a different implementation is to call it my_socketat(), just like we have a few other my_something. That clears any doubt and avoids any risk in the future, should this syscall be implemented in the end. Willy
