Re: [PATCH] unshare: Cleanup up the sys_unshare interface before we are committed.

[Janak Desai <janak@us.ibm.com>]

Andrew Morton wrote:

> ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>  
>
> > Since we have not crossed the magic 2.6.16 line can we please
> > include this patch.  My apologies for catching this so late in the
> > cycle.
> >
> > - Error if we are passed any flags we don't expect.
> >
> >   This preserves forward compatibility so programs that use new flags that
> >   run on old kernels will fail instead of silently doing the wrong thing.
> >    
>
> Makes sense.
>
>  
>
> > - Use separate defines from sys_clone.
> >
> >   sys_unshare can't implement half of the clone flags under any circumstances
> >   and those that it does implement have subtlely different semantics than
> >   the clone flags.  Using a different set of flags sets the
> >   expectation that things will be different.
> >    
>
> iirc there was some discussion about this and it was explicitly decided to
> keep the CLONE flags.
>
> Maybe Janak or Linus can comment?
>
>  
In the two prior discussions on this, the disagreement was on how much 
confusion
(if any) the use of CLONE_* flags would generate. I personally did not 
think that
it was confusing enough to add new flags, with the same values as CLONE_*
flags, in the kernel. Linus's last email (3/1/06) on the subject seemed 
to lean in that
direction as well. That's why I didn't take any action on it.

-Janak

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