Re: [RFC][v8][PATCH 9/10]: Define clone3() syscall

[H. Peter Anvin]

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.

clone3() is actually pretty good.

	-hpa
--
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/