Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 19 May 1996 23:26:27 +0100 (BST) | From | Bryn Paul Arnold Jones <> | Subject | Re: Proposal: merged system calls |
| |
On Sun, 19 May 1996, Ingo Molnar wrote: > the old method: > > read( 4, buffer, 100 ); > send( 5, buffer, 100, 0 ); > > the proposed method: > > read_send( 4, 5, 100, 0 ); > Woulden't the 4 & 5 be the other way around, ie the socket's opened already to get the request ? Don't worry, just nit picking ....
Hmm, woulden't makeing this work:
send( 5, read( 4, NULL, 100), 100, 0);
be easyer, better than thousands of new syscalls too (ok NULL is a bad value, but I don't know what to but). The kernel would have to recognise it's being passed a syscall as an argument, and do them both. It would have to be decided wether only one level of syscall's is allowed, or multiple. eg wether:
send( 5, read( open( "/whatever", O_RDONLY), NULL, lenfile( "/whatever")), lenfile( "/whatever"), 0);
works or not. It may be longer, but if it ment that we'd only need one switch to kernel space .... Ofcourse, if one one part failed, it all would. Returning error modes could be a problem, but then we would only need to say which part failed, with the approprate errno. I know, bloat, but it's not as much as zillions of new syscalls, and if the speedup avalable warents it ....
> -- mingo > Bryn -- PGP key pass phrase forgotten, \ Overload -- core meltdown sequence again :( | initiated. / This space is intentionally left | blank, apart from this text ;-) \____________________________________
|  |