Namespaces exhausted CLONE_XXX bits problem

Cedric Le Goater clg at
Tue Jan 15 07:51:50 PST 2008

Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul at
>> Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 11:25 +0300, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>>>> Hmm. I have an idea how to make this w/o a new system call. This might
>>>> look wierd, but. Why not stopple the last bit with a CLONE_NEWCLONE and
>>>> consider the parent_tidptr/child_tidptr in this case as the pointer to 
>>>> an array of extra arguments/flargs?
>>> I guess that does keep us from having to add an _actual_ system call.
>> Exactly!
> I'll be honest, while it's a really neat idea, in terms of code actually
> going into tree I far far prefer a real new syscall.

well, hijacking child_tidptr and adding a new syscall will probably look 
the same internally. so if it ends up that hijacking child_tidptr is not 
acceptable, we won't have much work to plug it in a new syscall.

> But it sounds like I'm the only one so I'll just mention it once and
> then bite my tongue  :)

hold on. this patch has not been sent on lkml@ but it's worth a try :)


More information about the Containers mailing list