Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:26:16 -0700 | From | sukadev@us ... | Subject | Re: [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
| |