Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1

[H. Peter Anvin]

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -----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.

I wasn't misrepresenting anything.  I was pointing out to the parent 
post -- not to you -- that sys_indirect does neither hide nor hair for 
what *he* was concerned about, which was the comprehensibility of the 
user-level interface.

	-hpa
--
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/