lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] clone64() and unshare64() system calls
Paul Menage [menage@google.com] wrote:
| On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:38 PM, <sukadev@us.ibm.com> wrote:
| >
| > But as Jon Corbet pointed out in the the thread above, it looked like
| > adding a new system call has been the "traditional" way of solving this
| > in Linux so far and there has been no consensus on a newer approach.
| >
|
| I thought that the consensus was that adding a new system call was
| better than trying to force extensibility on to the existing
| non-extensible system call.

There were couple of objections to extensible system calls like
sys_indirect() and to Pavel's approach.

|
| But if we are adding a new system call, why not make the new one
| extensible to reduce the need for yet another new call in the future?

hypothetically, can we make a variant of clone() extensible to the point
of requiring a copy_from_user() ?

|
| Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-10 20:31    [W:0.050 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site