Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:32:34 +0000 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call: system call handler function |
| |
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.
> 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 - 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/
| |