Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:48:23 -0400 | From | Jeff Dike <> | Subject | Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] PATCH 0/4 - Time virtualization |
| |
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 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/
| |