![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:30:52AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. And why not definitely assign sort of a "multiplexed syscall" entry, a la sys_socketcall() ? It could be shared by lots of non-mainline projects and have a greater chance of being stable along the time. Cheers, Willy - 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 13:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||