Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:15:43 -0400 | From | Jeff Dike <> | Subject | Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] PATCH 0/4 - Time virtualization |
| |
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 03:54:31PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote: > Additionally, if this flag ever goes into clone, it mustn't be named > CLONE_TIME, but CLONE_NEWTIME (or CLONE_NEWUTS). And given CLONE_NEWNS, it's > IMHO ok to have unshare(CLONE_NEWTIME) to mean "unshare time namespace", even > if it's incoherent with unshare(CLONE_FS) - the incoherency already exists > with CLONE_NEWNS.
I wonder if they should be CLONE_* at all. Given that we are likely to run out of free CLONE_* bits, unshare will have to reuse bits that don't have anything to do with sharing resources (CSIGNAL, CLONE_VFORK, etc), and it doesn't seem that nice to have two different CLONE_* flags with the same value, different meaning, only one of which can actually be used in clone.
It seems better to use UNSHARE_*, with the current bits that are common to unshare and clone being defined the same, i.e. #define UNSHARE_VM CLONE_VM
Jeff - 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |