[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <474305A5.7070100@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:04:53 -0800
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 5/6] Allow setting O_NONBLOCK flag for new sockets
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Miller wrote:
> FWIW, I think this indirect syscall stuff is the most ugly interface
> I've ever seen proposed for the kernel.
Well, the alternative is to introduce a dozens of new interfaces. It
was Linus who suggested this alternative. Plus, it seems that for
syslets we need basically the same interface anyway.
> And I agree with all of the objections raised by both H. Pater Anvin
> and Eric Dumazet.
Eric had no arguments and HP's comments lack a viable alternative proposal.
> Where does this INDIRECT_PARAM() macro get defined? I do not
> see it being defined anywhere in these patches.
Defined in <linux/indirect.h>:
+#define INDIRECT_PARAM(set, name) current->indirect_params.set.name
Not my idea, I was following one review comment.
- --
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHQwWl2ijCOnn/RHQRAhEbAJ9/bkrb/phOMRl16Fb0N1TDYglSsgCeNhHQ
3huhdKCAVTu4CJnktf/ufy4=
=Jj6h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
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