|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>|
|| ||ebiederm-AT-xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)|
|| ||Re: [PATCH] unshare: Cleanup up the sys_unshare interface before we
|| ||Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:19:27 -0800|
|| ||torvalds-AT-osdl.org, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, janak-AT-us.ibm.com,
viro-AT-ftp.linux.org.uk, hch-AT-lst.de, mtk-manpages-AT-gmx.net, ak-AT-muc.de,
email@example.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> iirc there was some discussion about this and it was explicitly decided to
> >> keep the CLONE flags.
> >> Maybe Janak or Linus can comment?
> > My personal opinion is that having a different set of flags is more
> > confusing and likely to result in problems later than having the same
> > ones. Regardless, I'm not touching this for 2.6.16 any more,
> I am actually a lot more concerned with the fact that we don't test
> for invalid bits. So we have an ABI that will change in the future,
> and that doesn't allow us to have a program that runs on old and new
The risk of breaking things is small - it would require someone to write a
sys_unshare-using app which a) they care about and b) has a particular bug
in it. But yes, we should check.
> I guess I can resend some version of my patch after 2.6.16 is out and
> break the ABI for the undefined bits then. Correct programs shouldn't
> care. But it sure would be nice if they could care.
Your single patch did two different things - there's a lesson here ;)
to post comments)