lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 7/8] fdmap v2 - implement sys_socket2


On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> First, how does this work in-kernel? Does it set a flag in the thread
> struct that magically gets used in the actual syscall? Or do we pass
> flags down to the sys_foo() function in some manner?

Set a flag in the thread-struct.

In fact, that's how "access()" already works.

And yes, syslets would need to have their own thread-structs and/or
save/restore the thing.

> Second, I think we're likely to run out of flag bits really quickly as
> this is a good dumping spot for patching up our many slightly
> brain-damaged APIs (be they POSIX or Linux-specific).

Well, I do suspect that we'd need to basically make the flags be
per-system call. With "common features" (ie a system call that doesn't
return a file descriptor would re-use the bit for "nonlinear-fd" for
something else, while a system call that doesn't do path lookup would use
all the LOOKUP_xyzzy bits for something else).

I agree that if we kept flags _totally_ separate, we'd run out of them
really quickly. But I don't think we want to ever be in the situation
where _one_ set of system calls would need that many flags. If we get
there, we'd really be much better off with a new system call!

> Third, can I do sys_indirect(sys_indirect(foo, args), flags1), flags2)?

I'd say no.

> Fourth, can we do sys_indirect(foo, args, flags | ASYNC) and get most
> of the way to merging this with the syslet proposal?

I think that may well be a really good idea.

Linus
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-08 04:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans