Jamie Lokier <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Part of the problem is the double negative in the name, leading
>> me to suggest that sys_share might almost be a better name.
>
> I agree with that suggestion, too.
>
> Alternatively, we could just add a flag to clone(): CLONE_SELF,
> meaning don't create a new task, just modify the properties of the
> current task.
Internally I doubt it would make much difference. There are
real differences from modifying current to copying from current.
Mostly it is ref counting but just enough that CLONE_SELF
is unlikely to be a sane thing to do.
Of course we could always implement spawn. The syscall with
every possible option :)
Eric
-
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/
[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]
