[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Extending syscalls
    Jonathan Corbet wrote:
    > Heh, indeed. But we do seem to have a recurring problem of people
    > wanting to extend sys_foo() beyond the confines of its original API.
    > I've observed a few ways of doing that:
    > - create sys_foo2() (or sys_foo64(), or sys_fooat(), or sys_pfoo(),
    > or...) and add the new stuff there.
    > The first approach has traditionally been the most popular. If we have
    > a consensus that this is the way to extend system calls in the future,
    > it would be nice to set that down somewhere. We could avoid a lot of
    > API blind alleys that way.

    I would argue it is the right approach. It lets the kernel system call
    entry dispatch directly to the system call for the "new" case, and to a
    compatibility thunk for the "old" case. It has the following desirable

    - No overhead for the "new" case.
    - Minimal overhead for the "old" case.
    - Easily dealt with by tools like strace that examine system calls.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-17 20:35    [W:0.021 / U:0.964 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site