Hello Aleksa, On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 at 00:12, Aleksa Sarai <cyp...@cyphar.com> wrote: > > On 2019-10-11, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Why CLONE3_CLEAR_SIGHAND rather than just CLONE_CLEAR_SIGHAND? > > There are no more flag bits left for the classic clone()/clone2() (the > last one was used up by CLONE_PIDFD) -- thus this flag is clone3()-only.
Yes, I understand that. But, I'm not sure that the "3" in the prefix is necessary. "CLONE_" still seems better to me. Consider this: sometime in the near future we will probably have time namespaces. The new flag for those namespaces will only be usable with clone3(). It should NOT be called CLONE3_NEWTIME, but rather CLONE_NEWTIME (or similar), because that same flag will presumably also be used in other APIs such as unshare() and setns(). (Hmm -- I wonder if we are going to need a new unshare2() or some such...) Thanks, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
