From: "Paul Menage" <menage@google.com>
To: sukadev@us.ibm.com
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org>,
clg@fr.ibm.com, serue@us.ibm.com,
"David C. Hansen" <haveblue@us.ibm.com>,
"Pavel Emelyanov" <xemul@openvz.org>,
Containers <containers@lists.osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] clone64() and unshare64() system calls
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:43:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6599ad830804091943j1f8a4500w5eda7774adfba69f@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080410023818.GD28477@us.ibm.com>
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.
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?
Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-10 2:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-09 22:26 sukadev
2008-04-09 22:32 ` [PATCH 1/3] change clone_flags type to u64 sukadev
2008-04-10 8:25 ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-10 12:25 ` Cedric Le Goater
2008-04-10 12:52 ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-10 13:11 ` Kirill Korotaev
2008-04-10 13:23 ` Cedric Le Goater
2008-04-10 13:18 ` Cedric Le Goater
2008-04-10 17:14 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2008-04-10 22:13 ` Daniel Hokka Zakrisson
2008-04-10 22:49 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2008-04-11 8:45 ` Daniel Hokka Zakrisson
2008-04-09 22:34 ` [PATCH 2/3] add do_unshare() sukadev
2008-04-09 22:34 ` [PATCH 3/3] add the clone64() and unshare64() syscalls sukadev
2008-04-09 23:07 ` Jakub Jelinek
2008-04-10 2:15 ` sukadev
2008-04-10 3:40 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-10 0:00 ` [PATCH 0/3] clone64() and unshare64() system calls H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-10 1:07 ` sukadev
2008-04-10 1:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-10 2:38 ` sukadev
2008-04-10 2:43 ` Paul Menage [this message]
2008-04-10 18:26 ` sukadev
2008-04-10 18:31 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-10 12:33 ` Cedric Le Goater
2008-04-10 16:00 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-10 6:48 ` Cedric Le Goater
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6599ad830804091943j1f8a4500w5eda7774adfba69f@mail.gmail.com \
--to=menage@google.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=clg@fr.ibm.com \
--cc=containers@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=haveblue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=sukadev@us.ibm.com \
--cc=xemul@openvz.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®