From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964909AbWCPX5Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:57:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964916AbWCPX5Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:57:25 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:50661 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964909AbWCPX5Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:57:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:57:05 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Michael Kerrisk cc: akpm@osdl.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, janak@us.ibm.com, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, hch@lst.de, ak@muc.de, paulus@samba.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] unshare: Cleanup up the sys_unshare interface before we are committed. In-Reply-To: <26439.1142552064@www064.gmx.net> Message-ID: References: <1359.1142546753@www064.gmx.net> <26439.1142552064@www064.gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > > My personal opinion is that having a different set of flags is more > > confusing > > How is it confusing? And who is it confusing for? It's confusing because - it's just more flags to keep track of - it's all the same issues that clone() has - it's an opportunity for future incoherence > It will potentially require kernel developers to think for just > a moment about what is going on. But why care about them -- > they don't have to *use* this interface; userland programmers do. All the confusion is equally a userland issue, don't try to just enforce your own opinions as somehow being "facts" by repeating them over and over again. Linus