Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:03:53 +0200 | From | "Michael Kerrisk" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1 |
| |
On 4/24/08, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> > Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:29:14 -0700 (PDT) > > > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > > Given we will never have 2^32 socket types, and in a sense this is part > > > of the type why not just use > > > > > > socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC, ...) > > > > Ok, I have to admit that I find this very appealing. It looks much > > cleaner, but perhaps more importantly, it also looks both readable _and_ > > easier to use for the user-space programmer. > > > Me too.
But this approach fixes just one of the interfaces. There are 7 or 8 other interfaces that need to solve the same problem. What about those?
It strikes me to be cleanest to use the same solution for all of them -- i.e., new syscalls (seems simplest) or sys_indirect() -- including socket().
-- I'll likely only see replies if they are CCed to mtk.manpages at gmail dot com
| |