lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1
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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-24 19:39    [W:0.060 / U:2.720 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site