Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:40:07 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] add the clone64() and unshare64() syscalls |
| |
sukadev@us.ibm.com wrote: > Jakub Jelinek [jakub@redhat.com] wrote: > | On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 03:34:59PM -0700, sukadev@us.ibm.com wrote: > | > From: Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com> > | > Subject: [PATCH 3/3] add the clone64() and unshare64() syscalls > | > > | > This patch adds 2 new syscalls : > | > > | > long sys_clone64(unsigned long flags_high, unsigned long flags_low, > | > unsigned long newsp); > | > > | > long sys_unshare64(unsigned long flags_high, unsigned long flags_low); > | > | Can you explain why are you adding it for 64-bit arches too? unsigned long > | is there already 64-bit, and both sys_clone and sys_unshare have unsigned > | long flags, rather than unsigned int. > > Hmm, > > By simply resuing clone() on 64 bit and adding a new call for 32-bit won't > the semantics of clone() differ between the two ? > > i.e clone() on 64 bit supports say CLONE_NEWPTS clone() on 32bit does not ? > > Wouldn't it be simpler/cleaner if clone() and clone64() behaved the same > on both 32 and 64 bit systems ? >
No, not really. The way this work on the libc side is pretty much "use clone64 if it exists, otherwise use clone".
-hpa
| |