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

"Albert Cahalan" <[email protected]> writes:

> The unshare() syscall is in fact a clone() syscall minus one
> CLONE_* flag that is normally implied: CLONE_TASK_STRUCT.
> (conceptually -- it has no name because it is always implied)
>
> We already have one flag with inverted action: CLONE_NEWNS.
> Adding another such flag (for the task struct) makes sense.
> The new system call is thus not needed at all.
>
> Suggested names: CLONE_NO_TASK, CLONE_SAMETASK, CLONE_SHARETASK

The practical issue there is that even in the best case the implementations
are enough different that it probably would not make a lot of sense.

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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH] unshare: Cleanup up the sys_unshare interface before we are committed.
    • From: "Albert Cahalan" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCHSET] block: fix PIO cache coherency bug
• Next by Date: Re: ext3_ordered_writepage() questions
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] unshare: Cleanup up the sys_unshare interface before we are committed.
• Next by thread: [patch] mspec - special memory driver and do_no_pfn handler
• 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]