Peter,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 10/21/2009 01:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
My question here is: what does 3 actually mean? In general, system
calls have not followed any convention of numbering to indicate
successive versions -- clone2() being
Sukadev,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu
suka...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
H. Peter Anvin [...@zytor.com] wrote:
On 10/21/2009 01:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
My question here is: what does 3 actually mean? In general, system
calls have not followed any convention of
On 10/22/2009 07:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
3 is number of arguments.
sys_clone3(struct clone_struct __user *ucs, pid_t __user *pids)
It appears to me that the number of arguments is 2.
It was 3 at one point... I'm not sure when that changed last :-/
It's better than extended or
Peter,
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:38 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 10/22/2009 07:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
3 is number of arguments.
sys_clone3(struct clone_struct __user *ucs, pid_t __user *pids)
It appears to me that the number of arguments is 2.
It was 3 at one
On 10/22/2009 09:14 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
So, sometimes, a number in a system call should be the bit width of
some arguments(s), sometimes it should be the number of arguments, and
sometimes (well, just occasionally, as in mmap2() and clone()) -- it
should be a version number? Does the
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 02:14:16PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
Peter,
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:38 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 10/22/2009 07:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
3 is number of arguments.
sys_clone3(struct clone_struct __user *ucs, pid_t __user *pids)
Michael Kerrisk [mtk.manpa...@googlemail.com] wrote:
| Sukadev,
|
| On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu
| suka...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
| H. Peter Anvin [...@zytor.com] wrote:
| On 10/21/2009 01:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
|
| My question here is: what does 3 actually
On 10/21/2009 01:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
My question here is: what does 3 actually mean? In general, system
calls have not followed any convention of numbering to indicate
successive versions -- clone2() being the one possible exception that
I know of.
3 is number of arguments. It's
H. Peter Anvin [...@zytor.com] wrote:
On 10/21/2009 01:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
My question here is: what does 3 actually mean? In general, system
calls have not followed any convention of numbering to indicate
successive versions -- clone2() being the one possible exception that
I know
On 10/22/2009 04:44 AM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
3 is number of arguments.
To me, it is a version number.
mmap() and mmap2() both have 6 parameters.
You keep bringing this up. mmap2() is (a) a non-user-visible call; (b)
an exception (a mistake, if you want.)
Besides if wait4() were
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Matt Helsley matth...@us.ibm.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 06:31:20AM +0900, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
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
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:06:31AM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
Michael Kerrisk [mtk.manpa...@googlemail.com] wrote:
| Hi Sukadev
|
| On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu
| suka...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
| Here is an updated patch with the following interface:
|
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
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 06:31:20AM +0900, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
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
Hi Sukadev
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu
suka...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Here is an updated patch with the following interface:
long sys_clone3(unsigned int flags_low, struct clone_args __user *cs,
pid_t *pids);
There are just two other
Michael Kerrisk [mtk.manpa...@googlemail.com] wrote:
| Hi Sukadev
|
| On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu
| suka...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
| Here is an updated patch with the following interface:
|
| long sys_clone3(unsigned int flags_low, struct clone_args __user
Here is an updated patch with the following interface:
long sys_clone3(unsigned int flags_low, struct clone_args __user *cs,
pid_t *pids);
There are just two other (minor) changes pending to this patchset:
- PATCH 7: add a CLONE_UNUSED bit to
Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
Subject: [RFC][v8][PATCH 9/10]: Define clone3() syscall
Container restart requires that a task have the same pid it had when it was
checkpointed. When containers are nested the tasks within the containers
exist in multiple pid namespaces and hence have multiple
18 matches
Mail list logo
