Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Mar 2006 22:40:46 +0100 (MET) | From | "Michael Kerrisk" <> | Subject | Re: unhare() interface design questions and man page |
| |
Replying to myself...
> > > Do you have any further response on this point? > > > (There was none in your last message?) > > > > I personally don't think it's worth makign UNSHARE_NEWNS just because > > it's a flag that acts differently from the other CLONE_xxx flags. > > See my comments above. (And in case it wasn't clear, I meant > make a complete set of UNSHARE_* flags that mirror the > corresponding CLONE_* flags.)
(By the way, I meant that the flag should preferably be called UNSHARE_NS, not UNSHARE_NEWNS -- as noted in an earlier message in this thread, CLONE_NEWNS was itself a bad name.)
I had another thought about why using names of the form UNSHARE_* might be worthwhile. It just might be that in the future, someone might want to add a flag that has nothing to do with clone(). I mean some flag that somehow performs some other modification of the behaviour or unshare(), or perhaps unshares something that isn't shared/unshared by clone(). (The first possibility seems more likely than the second.) In that case, it would make litte sense to name the flag(s) CLONE_xxx.
Cheers,
Michael
-- Michael Kerrisk maintainer of Linux man pages Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7
Want to help with man page maintenance? Grab the latest tarball at ftp://ftp.win.tue.nl/pub/linux-local/manpages/, read the HOWTOHELP file and grep the source files for 'FIXME'. - 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/
| |