Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Dec 1999 19:20:42 -0700 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |