Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:31:29 -0700 | From | Ulrich Drepper <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1 |
| |
-----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.
- -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖ -----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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |