Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1

From: Ulrich Drepper
Date: Thu Apr 24 2008 - 13:32:31 EST


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> sys_indirect is a total red herring here, since it won't help one iota
> making the userspace interface comprehensible - it just introduces a
> different calling convention that the C library will have to thunk.

Nobody ever suggested that sys_indirect is in any way visible at the
userlevel. It's only meant to solve the problem of changing many
syscalls (and hence touch lots of arch-specific code). Again, as said
several times, it could easily be used to fix the existing signalfd and
eventfd syscalls without any arch-specific changes and no userlevel
interface changes (the latter since we already have the correct interface).

Yes, you don't like sys_indirect, we know it. But don't deliberately
misrepresent the approach.

- --
â Ulrich Drepper â Red Hat, Inc. â 444 Castro St â Mountain View, CA â
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIEMPx2ijCOnn/RHQRAr7uAJ0aHkZ+bbjk2nsMhhN2xzslA/yhKgCghi8r
9PZw8zfW5fxTVTfrbsHIII0=
=SmAT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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/