Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/3] introduce SYS_CLONE_MASK

I concur with Eric's assessment.  Adding new magic bits to the generic
clone path seems like a poor way to cope with kernel threads.  I think
it's better if kernel thread setup gets less like normal user process
setup.  I also agree with Eric that PPID of 0 is a very natural way for
kernel threads to be displayed.  We need to know more about the nature
of the compatibility issue in procps to judge whether there is good
reason to avoid changing it.


Thanks,
Roland
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/3] introduce SYS_CLONE_MASK
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)

• References:
  • Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/3] introduce SYS_CLONE_MASK
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] zap_other_threads: remove unneeded ->exit_signal change
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Scheduler: Improving the scheduler performance.
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/3] introduce SYS_CLONE_MASK
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/3] introduce SYS_CLONE_MASK
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]