[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Syscall numbers for BProc
    Followup to:  <>
    By author:
    In newsgroup:
    > The reason it is the way it is because when I'm trying to avoid
    > stomping on other syscalls, having a small foot print is a good thing.
    > BProc will always be a fringe kind of thing. Adding more than a
    > syscall or two seems like quite a bit of polution in the main kernel
    > to me. Similarly, I don't think the main kernel should include the
    > BProc patch. It changes fairly often, isn't 100% unintrusive and
    > would be used by less than .1% of people out there.
    > Breaking out every call into a separate syscall number would also make
    > it more difficult to add new features in the future.

    Well, first of all, multiplexes break a lot of tools. But worse, they
    lead to really badly designed APIs partially because of lack of
    review. You have just demonstrated this phenomenon...

    <> at work, <> in private!
    "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
    Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.022 / U:25.664 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site