Serge E. Hallyn wrote:

Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@librato.com):

quoted

From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <redacted>

...

quoted

+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.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>