Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Oren Laadan ([email protected]): >> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <[email protected]> > ... >> +struct target_pid_set { >> + int num_pids; >> + pid_t *target_pids; >> +}; > > Oren, I thought you had decided to add an extended flags field > here, to support additional CLONE_ flags - such as CLONE_TIMENS?
Yes. > > I mention it now because if you're still considering that > long-term, then IMO the syscall should not be called clone_with_pids(), > but clone_extended(). Otherwise, to support new clone flags we'll > either have to use unshare2 (without clone support), or add yet > another clone variant, OR use clone_with_pids() which is a poor name > for something which will likely be used in cases without specifying > pids, but specifying flags not support through any other interface. True. Also, Suka - any objections to rename 'struct target_pid_set' to simply 'struct pid_set' ? Actually, it could probably be (re)used internally in the patch that adds to cgroup a 'procs' file similar to 'tasks' (https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers/2009-July/019679.html) Oren. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
