[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4810C3F1.9060009@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:31:29 -0700
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org Jakub Jelinek" <jakub@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1
-----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.
- --
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIEMPx2ijCOnn/RHQRAr7uAJ0aHkZ+bbjk2nsMhhN2xzslA/yhKgCghi8r
9PZw8zfW5fxTVTfrbsHIII0=
=SmAT
-----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