Re: [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call: system call handler function
- From: ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman)
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:34:06 -0700
Jamie Lokier <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call: system call handler function
- From: JANAK DESAI
- Re: [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call: system call handler function
- From: Eric W. Biederman
- Re: [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call: system call handler function
- From: JANAK DESAI
- Re: [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call: system call handler function
- From: Eric W. Biederman
- Re: [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call: system call handler function
- From: Jamie Lokier
- [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call: system call handler function
- Prev by Date: Re: [spi-devel-general] Re: [PATCH/RFC] SPI: add DMAUNSAFE analog
- Next by Date: Re: [2.6 patch] i386: always use 4k stacks
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call: system call handler function
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call: system call handler function
- Index(es):