Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:34:32 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1 |
| |
Ulrich Drepper wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> sys_indirect is a total red herring here, since it won't help one iota >> making the userspace interface comprehensible - it just introduces a >> different calling convention that the C library will have to thunk. > > Nobody ever suggested that sys_indirect is in any way visible at the > userlevel. It's only meant to solve the problem of changing many > syscalls (and hence touch lots of arch-specific code). Again, as said > several times, it could easily be used to fix the existing signalfd and > eventfd syscalls without any arch-specific changes and no userlevel > interface changes (the latter since we already have the correct interface). > > Yes, you don't like sys_indirect, we know it. But don't deliberately > misrepresent the approach. >
I wasn't misrepresenting anything. I was pointing out to the parent post -- not to you -- that sys_indirect does neither hide nor hair for what *he* was concerned about, which was the comprehensibility of the user-level interface.
-hpa
| |