lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch 0/6] sys_indirect RFC - sys_indirect introduction
    On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Ulrich Drepper wrote:

    > On 7/1/07, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
    > > With the current API design you'd able to easily confine the "pre" code
    > > inside the "set" function, and the "post" code inside the "unset"
    > > function. It looks pretty clean to me, and allows to limit the knowledge
    > > of sys_indirect, the more as possible inside kernel/indirect.c.
    >
    > But this will not be applicable. We already discussed that each
    > syscall likely needs its own set of flags etc. There really isn't
    > much overlap if any which cannot be handled at least as well using a
    > flat structure. You're adding major complications for something which
    > IMO will never be usable. With the flat structure to whole overhead
    > of sys_indirect is limited to a test for valid syscalls, copying the
    > struct, making the call to the syscall function, and resetting the
    > value in current. Very simple and fast.

    Never be usable? I made you a concrete example that is like 8 months old.
    And *that* could not have been cleanly handled with the flat structure
    idea.
    The extra flags parameter is one example where we'd need an extra flags
    field in the task_struct in any case. So you need in any case code that
    does extra checks and merges normal parameters/flags with the shared
    context ones. This independently of the method used. But there are
    examples (and the signal stuff is one of them), where you do need the
    set_context+syscall+unset_context abstraction, for all cases where the
    kernel already has its own internal data strctures. In those cases you'd
    have to spread sys_internal context knowledge all around the kernel,
    whereas the current solution allows you to confine the code inside
    kernel/indirect.c (through the set/unset abstraction). And this w/out even
    try to hit the weak spot of about how this structure will look after a few
    additions.



    - Davide


    -
    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: 2007-07-03 00:39    [W:0.024 / U:128.308 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site