[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071119145224.31ee5242.dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:52:24 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/4] sys_indirect system call
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:31:36 -0500
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> union indirect_params i;
> i.file_flags.flags = O_CLOEXEC;
This setup forbids future addons to file_flags
In three years, when we want to add a new indirect feature to socket()
call, do we need a new indirect2() syscall ?
So I suggest using :
union indirect_params i = {
.file_flags.flags = O_CLOEXEC,
};
fd = syscall (__NR_indirect, &r, &i, sizeof (i));
Or better, you could avoid using 'union indirect_params' in user code, and
only use the substructs for each function.
/* define this in some include file of course */
struct file_flags {
int flags;
};
/* use it */
struct file_flags ff = { .flags = O_CLOEXEC};
fd = syscall (__NR_indirect, &r, &ff, sizeof(ff));
This to avoid to copy to kernel un-necessary data, and permitting futures changes.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists