Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] introduce kernel_execve function to replace __KERNEL_SYSCALLS__ | Date | Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:13:39 +0200 |
| |
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 15:39, Jeff Dike wrote: > You're contemplating changing UML to do, e.g. > syscall(NR_write, fd, buf, len) > instead of the current > write(fd, buf,len) > ? > > That hardly seems like an improvement and it seems fairly unnecessary. > No, that's not what I was referring to. I was thinking of the calls:
arch/um/os-Linux/process.c:inline _syscall0(pid_t, getpid) arch/um/os-Linux/sys-i386/tls.c:static _syscall1(int, get_thread_area, user_desc_t *, u_info); arch/um/os-Linux/tls.c:static _syscall1(int, get_thread_area, user_desc_t *, u_info); arch/um/os-Linux/tls.c:static _syscall1(int, set_thread_area, user_desc_t *, u_info); arch/um/sys-i386/unmap.c:static inline _syscall2(int,munmap,void *,start,size_t,len) arch/um/sys-i386/unmap.c:static inline _syscall6(void *,mmap2,void *,addr,size_t,len,int,prot,int,flags,int,fd,off_t,offset) arch/um/sys-x86_64/unmap.c:static inline _syscall2(int,munmap,void *,start,size_t,len) arch/um/sys-x86_64/unmap.c:static inline _syscall6(void *,mmap,void *,addr,size_t,len,int,prot,int,flags,int,fd,off_t,offset)
Are these for calling the host OS or calling the UML kernel? If they are for the host, they can be implemented using syscall(), otherwise by calling the sys_* functions directly.
Arnd <>< - 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/
| |