Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:28:10 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -mm 0/7] execns syscall and user namespace |
| |
Cedric Le Goater wrote: > H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> I would like give a strong objection to the naming. The -ve() suffix in >> execve() isn't jettisonable; it indicates its position within a family >> of functions (only one of which is a true system call.) >> >> execven() would be better name (the -n argument coming after then -e >> argument). The library could then provide execlen(), execlpn() etc as >> appropriate. > > I agree. execns() is a shortcut. > > This service behaves like execve() if the flag argument is 0, so I guess we > should keep the execve- prefix. However, we could be a bit more explicit on > the nature of this service and call it execve_unshare(). >
How about execveu()? -n looked a bit weird to me, mostly because the "le" form would be execlen() which looks like something completely different...
-hpa - 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/
| |