Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 08 May 2003 22:10:21 +0300 | From | Shachar Shemesh <> | Subject | Re: The disappearing sys_call_table export. |
| |
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>Maybe you have a different notion of proper mechanism then everyone >else. > Out of personal interest - would a mechanism that promised the following be considered a "proper mechanism"? 1. Work on all platforms. 2. Allow load and unload in arbitrary order and timings (which also means "be race free"). 3. Have low/zero overhead if not used
Would you also require: 4. Have reasonable overhead when used a "must have" demand? Would, on the other hand, a: 4b. Have zero overhead when used for functions not hooked be an alternative demand?
I'm currently trying to work with some other subscribers of this list on a design. Getting 1, 2 and 3 is a complicated enough task, of course. I would like to hear estimates about inclusion chances should we manage to come up with an implmentation that lives up to all the above.
Thanks, Shachar
-- Shachar Shemesh Open Source integration consultant Home page & resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |