Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:36:00 -0500 | From | JANAK DESAI <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call: system call handler function |
| |
Jamie Lokier wrote:
>Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > >>I follow but I am very disturbed. >> >>You are leaving CLONE_NEWNS to mean you want a new namespace. >> >>For clone CLONE_FS unset means generate an unshared fs_struct >> CLONE_FS set means share the fs_struct with the parent >> >>But for unshare CLONE_FS unset means share the fs_struct with others >> and CLONE_FS set means generate an unshared fs_struct >> >>The meaning of CLONE_FS between the two calls in now flipped, >>but CLONE_NEWNS is not. Please let's not implement it this way. >> >> > >I agree. > > > >>Part of the problem is the double negative in the name, leading >>me to suggest that sys_share might almost be a better name. >> >> > >I agree with that suggestion, too. > >Alternatively, we could just add a flag to clone(): CLONE_SELF, >meaning don't create a new task, just modify the properties of the >current task. > > ... and this won't cause confusion :-) ? Clone to me implies that a second entity is being created.
> > >>So please code don't invert the meaning of the bits. This will >>allow sharing of the sanity checks with clone. >>In addition this leaves open the possibility that routines like >>copy_fs properly refactored can be shared between clone and unshare. >> >> > >And also make the API less confusing to document and use. > >-- Jamie > > > I am all for less confusing API and saner semantics. I will take a look at yours and Eric's suggestions to see what can be done.
Thanks.
-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/
| |