[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25712.1200582125@vena.lwn.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:02:05 -0700
From: corbet@....net (Jonathan Corbet)
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>, drepper@...hat.com,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Extending syscalls (was: [PATCH 1/2] Extend sys_clone and sys_unshare system calls API)
Al Viro sez:
> Nah, just put an XML parser into the kernel to have the form match the
> contents...
>
> Al "perhaps we should newgroup alt.tasteless.api for all that stuff" Viro
Heh, indeed. But we do seem to have a recurring problem of people
wanting to extend sys_foo() beyond the confines of its original API.
I've observed a few ways of doing that:
- create sys_foo2() (or sys_foo64(), or sys_fooat(), or sys_pfoo(),
or...) and add the new stuff there.
- Put a version number into the API somewhere - wireless extensions,
for example.
- Set a flag saying "I've stashed some additional parameters somewhere
else." That's sys_indirect() and the current proposal for extending
clone().
- Just do it all with a kernel-based XML parser. I think we should
call this approach sys_viro() in honor of its champion.
- Do it all in sysfs
The first approach has traditionally been the most popular. If we have
a consensus that this is the way to extend system calls in the future,
it would be nice to set that down somewhere. We could avoid a lot of
API blind alleys that way.
jon
--
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