Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 May 2003 20:15:09 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: The disappearing sys_call_table export. |
| |
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 10:10:21PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > 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
No, the most important point is that a proper meachanism wouldn't replace syscall slots but rather operate on kernel objects (file, inode vma, task_struct, etc..). Linus has expressed a few times that he has no interest in loadable syscalls and any core developer I've talked to agrees with that.
- 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/
| |