Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] PATCH 0/4 - Time virtualization

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:33:40PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > So, maybe it belongs in clone as a "backwards" flag similar to
> > CLONE_NEWNS.
> 
> I must note that currently every (?) flag allowed for unshare is also allowed
> for clone, so you need to do that anyway.

Currently.  We are running out of CLONE_ bits - in mainline, there are
three left, and two of them are likely to be used by CLONE_TIME and
CLONE_UTSNAME (or whatever that turns out to be called).

I'm eyeing the low eight bits (CSIGNAL) for future unshare flags, but
those would be unusable in clone().

And why should there be any overlap between clone flags and unshare
flags?  Isn't 
	clone(CLONE_TIME);
the same as 
	clone();
	unshare(CLONE_TIME);
?

				Jeff
-
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]
  Powered by Linux