[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <517f3f820804240903y788102bar5c7d1fa9bcee1c8a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:03:53 +0200
From: "Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To: "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
drepper@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1
On 4/24/08, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
> > >
> > > Given we will never have 2^32 socket types, and in a sense this is part
> > > of the type why not just use
> > >
> > > socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC, ...)
> >
> > Ok, I have to admit that I find this very appealing. It looks much
> > cleaner, but perhaps more importantly, it also looks both readable _and_
> > easier to use for the user-space programmer.
>
>
> Me too.
But this approach fixes just one of the interfaces. There are 7 or 8
other interfaces that need to solve the same problem. What about
those?
It strikes me to be cleanest to use the same solution for all of them
-- i.e., new syscalls (seems simplest) or sys_indirect() -- including
socket().
--
I'll likely only see replies if they are CCed to mtk.manpages at gmail dot com
--
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