![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> writes: > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 04:16:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > But if we need additional infrastructure to "add new syscalls via VDSO" then > > this should be in the base kernel, even if it's empty, yes? > > Linus has vetoed dynamic syscall registration a few times. And I agree > with him, dynamic syscalls are the best way to get completely crappy > interfaces. The only thing I was thinking of doing was to export the symbol __kernel__NR_kexec_load. With a little care we could probably export the system call numbers just as easily from /proc/kallsyms. At this point that idea seems to add no real benefit. Except for allowing for a user space that can more easily track syscall renumber in the kernel, which seems to be the wrong problem to solve. So if kexec could actually get a reserved system call number that would be the best solution I have seen in this thread. Andrew how close are we to a point where we can look at kexec inclusion? Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||