lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-04-28 18:17    [W:0.040 / U:0.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site