lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.3.30pre1 syscall w/6 args support?
Ulrich Drepper writes:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
>
> > In fact, I would argue that the proper way to handle this is:
> >
> > - no sysenter capability on the CPU: use "int 0x80":
> >
> > magic_address:
> > movl 4(%esp),%ebx
> > movl 8(%esp),%ecx
> > movl 12(%esp),%edx
> > movl 16(%esp),%esi
> > movl 20(%esp),%edi
> > movl 24(%esp),%ebp
> > int $0x80
> > ret
>
> I don't like this at all and it is really unnecessary.
>
> First, it's easy enough to recompile glibc if there is a new calling
> convention. One only has to change one definition in the sources and
> recompile.

I don't want to have to patch/hack libc and recompile just to use the
better syscall interface.

Imagine suddenly someone starts experimenting with a variety of
techniques and puts out kernel patches. I wouldn't want to have to
track those patches in libc as well. Too much work. I wouldn't bother
testing the kernel patches.

> IF/When sysenter comes it's easy enough to provide an alternative
> sysdep.h version which has the definition for the processors which
> support them. You can even have libraries with and without this
> system call mechanism installed at the same time (e.g., when the
> directory is exported via NFS) and the ld.so will pick the right one.

This sounds fragile.

Regards,

Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.682 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site