Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1

[Michael Kerrisk]

On 4/24/08, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>  Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>  >
>  >
>  > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
>  > >
>  > > Given we will never have 2^32 socket types, and in a sense this is part
>  > > of the type why not just use
>  > >
>  > >     socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC, ...)
>  >
>  > Ok, I have to admit that I find this very appealing. It looks much
>  > cleaner, but perhaps more importantly, it also looks both readable _and_
>  > easier to use for the user-space programmer.
>
>
> Me too.

But this approach fixes just one of the interfaces.  There are 7 or 8
other interfaces that need to solve the same problem.  What about
those?

It strikes me to be cleanest to use the same solution for all of them
-- i.e., new syscalls (seems simplest) or sys_indirect() -- including
socket().

-- 
I'll likely only see replies if they are CCed to mtk.manpages at gmail dot com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/