Re: [PATCH 0/3] clone64() and unshare64() system calls

[sukadev]

Paul Menage [menage@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
| On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:38 PM,  <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
--
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/