It's not just about SYSENTER, though. It's about providing a framework
so that each syscall can be optimised in the best way *for that
syscall*, yet with a common ABI.
In some cases, a "syscall" won't actually involve a trap to the
kernel, such as gettimeofday(). This is something that would benefit
other architectures.
> > Why do you say the Sparc people would have fun? Is that "fun, as in
> > we can do neat tricks with this", or "fun, as in break out the
> > flamethrowers"?
>
> I was thinking that building the jump table on sparc{,64} would be
> complex because of their sparse syscall numbers. On second thought
> this wouldn't necessarily be the case.
I'm sure something can be arranged.
> But that brings up an interesting side issue: are we considering
> multiple PER_* or just PER_LINUX?
I think PER_LINUX is the important one. Besides, this whole proposal
involves changing the ABI, which we can do for PER_LINUX. For other
binary formats, we have to stick to their ABI. So I don't see how a
jump table would help here.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
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/