Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:09:03 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] Cross Memory Attach v2 (resend) |
| |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 09:06:24 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:28:47 +1030 > > Christopher Yeoh <cyeoh@au1.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > Resending just in case the previous mail was missed rather than ignored :-) > > > I'd appreciate any comments.... > > > > Fear, uncertainty, doubt and resistance! > > > > We have a bit of a track record of adding cool-looking syscalls and > > then regretting it a few years later. Few people use them, and maybe > > they weren't so cool after all, and we have to maintain them for ever. > > They are often cut off at the libc level and never get into apps. > > If we had tools/libc/ (mapped by the kernel automagically via the vDSO), where > people could add new syscall usage to actual, existing, real-life libc functions, > where the improvements could thus propagate into thousands of apps immediately, > without requiring any rebuild of apps or even any touching of the user-space > installation, we'd probably have _much_ more lively development in this area. > > Right now it's slow and painful, and few new syscalls can break through the brick > wall of implementation latency, app adoption disinterest due to backwards > compatibility limitations and the resulting inevitable lack of testing and lack of > tangible utility.
Can't people use libc's syscall(2)?
| |