Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751123AbVJMKLp (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2005 06:11:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751499AbVJMKLp (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2005 06:11:45 -0400 Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:42722 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750851AbVJMKLo (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2005 06:11:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:11:37 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Janak Desai Cc: chrisw@osdl.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] New System call unshare (try 2) Message-ID: <20051013101137.GA22049@mail.shareable.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 768 Lines: 20 Janak Desai wrote: > + > +/* > + * Performs sanity checks on the flags passed to the unshare system > + * call. > + */ > +static inline int check_unshare_flags(unsigned long unshare_flags) After making the changes we talked about to the above function - it would make sense for clone() to call it too. Have the tests in one place, so both calls are consistent with each other, and will remain so. The atomic_read() parts are dependent on the call being unshare(), but the bit tests should be identical I think. -- 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/