Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:42:26 +0100 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1 |
| |
> But this approach fixes just one of the interfaces. There are 7 or 8 > other interfaces that need to solve the same problem. What about > those?
Actually it seems to fix most of them. I accept Jakub's observation we need a "paccept()" or similar.
> It strikes me to be cleanest to use the same solution for all of them > -- i.e., new syscalls (seems simplest) or sys_indirect() -- including > socket().
New syscalls make the interface more complex and harder to learn. They make it harder to tweak applications neatly to use the new API if present. They are not immediately obvious from knowling the existing API.
What we don't want to do is to end up with a thousand weird system calls as Windows NT did where nobody can actually understand chunks of code without looking calls up in books as they go.
| |