I still don't think we need CLONE_PPIDOK. I've been convinced that we
need PF_PPIDOK, and that flag should be cleared on exec(); but I really
don't see the process needs to explicitly allow other portions of itself
to become its siblings.
(hmm.. might it be useful to allow a process to be able to CLONE_PPID
after it has exec()ed? That's the only time I can think of when PPIDOK
makes sense. And that seems a pretty unlikely thing to want.)
-- Matthew Wilcox <willy@bofh.ai> "Windows and MacOS are products, contrived by engineers in the service of specific companies. Unix, by contrast, is not so much a product as it is a painstakingly compiled oral history of the hacker subculture." - N Stephenson- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/