Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932423AbZJSXuO (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:50:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932399AbZJSXuN (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:50:13 -0400 Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:42980 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932397AbZJSXuL (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:50:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:50:12 -0700 From: Matt Helsley To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Matt Helsley , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , mtk.manpages@gmail.com, randy.dunlap@oracle.com, arnd@arndb.de, Containers , Nathan Lynch , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Louis.Rilling@kerlabs.com, "Eric W. Biederman" , kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Alexey Dobriyan , roland@redhat.com, Pavel Emelyanov Subject: Re: [RFC][v8][PATCH 9/10]: Define clone3() syscall Message-ID: <20091019235012.GF27627@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20091013044925.GA28181@us.ibm.com> <20091013045439.GI28435@us.ibm.com> <20091016042041.GA7220@us.ibm.com> <20091016180631.GA31036@us.ibm.com> <20091019174405.GE27627@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> <4ADCDAA8.5080408@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ADCDAA8.5080408@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1507 Lines: 40 On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 06:31:20AM +0900, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 10/20/2009 02:44 AM, Matt Helsley wrote: >>> | >>> | I know I'm late to this discussion, but why the name clone3()? It's >>> | not consistent with any other convention used fo syscall naming, > > This assumption, of course, is just plain wrong. Look at the wait > system calls, for example. However, when a small integer is used like > that, it pretty much always reflects numbers of arguments. > >>> | AFAICS. I think a name like clone_ext() or clonex() (for extended) >>> | might make more sense. >>> >>> Sure, we talked about calling it clone_extended() and I can go back >>> to that. >>> >>> Only minor concern with that name was if this new call ever needs to >>> be extended, what would we call it :-). With clone3() we could add a >>> real/fake parameter and call it clone4() :-p >> >> Perhaps clone64 (somewhat like stat64 for example)? >> > > I think that doesn't exactly reflect the nature of the changes. Yes. Without adopting an impractical encoding scheme it's quite unlikely a small number like 3 or 64 could exactly reflect all the changes :). I don't think that's a realistic objection though so... > clone3() is actually pretty good. I agree. Cheers, -Matt Helsley -- 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/