Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754966AbZJUTnf (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:43:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753959AbZJUTnf (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:43:35 -0400 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:35190 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753621AbZJUTne (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:43:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:44:40 -0700 From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Matt Helsley , 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: <20091021194440.GA1283@us.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> <20091019235012.GF27627@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> <4ADF06B7.50508@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ADF06B7.50508@zytor.com> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.0.32 on an i486 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: 1289 Lines: 37 H. Peter Anvin [hpa@zytor.com] wrote: > On 10/21/2009 01:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote: >> >> My question here is: what does "3" actually mean? In general, system >> calls have not followed any convention of numbering to indicate >> successive versions -- clone2() being the one possible exception that >> I know of. >> > > "3" is number of arguments. To me, it is a version number. mmap() and mmap2() both have 6 parameters. Besides if wait4() were born before wait3(), would it still be wait4() :-) But I see that it is hard to get one-convention-that-fits-all. > It's better than "extended" or something > like that simply because "extended" just means "more than", and a number > at least tells you *how much more than*. And extended assumes we wont extend again. An informal poll of reviewers has clone3() with a slight advantage :-) clone_extended() camp: Serge Hallyn, Kerrisk, Louis Rilling, clone3(): Sukadev, H. Peter Anvin, Oren, Matt Helsley. I like clone3() but am not insisting on it. I just want a name... Sukadev -- 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/