To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: JANAK DESAI <janak@us.ibm.com>, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, chrisw@osdl.org,
       dwmw2@infradead.org, serue@us.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu,
       linuxram@us.ibm.com, jmorris@namei.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov,
       akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call: system call handler
 function
References: <1134513959.11972.167.camel@hobbs.atlanta.ibm.com>
	<m1k6e687e2.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
	<43A1D435.5060602@us.ibm.com>
	<m1d5jy83nr.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
	<20051215213234.GB6990@mail.shareable.org>
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:34:06 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20051215213234.GB6990@mail.shareable.org> (Jamie Lokier's
 message of "Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:32:34 +0000")
Message-ID: <m18xum7zxd.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 928
Lines: 26

Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> writes:

>
>> 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.

Internally I doubt it would make much difference.  There are
real differences from modifying current to copying from current.
Mostly it is ref counting but just enough that CLONE_SELF
is unlikely to be a sane thing to do.

Of course we could always implement spawn.  The syscall with
every possible option :)

Eric
-
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/