Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:27:46 -0700 | From | Ulrich Drepper <> | Subject | sys_indirect or many syscalls? |
| |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Linux,
will you please make a decision regarding sys_indirect? There has been no other proposal so the alternative is to add more syscalls.
This really is a problem. For one instance, see
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443321
The problem is actually a socket call and we cannot reliably set the CLOEXEC bit without massive program slowdowns. This is just one example.
I still think the sys_indirect method is the best since it avoids bloat in the number of system calls.
- -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkgMM+IACgkQ2ijCOnn/RHRwiQCfXzlb3ihLjJTfgEXIK9BObyvx H6oAoJBRj4c8lfePA8+GWzRzJXSdss95 =pnY+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |