lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Re: Idea: Feature information / extensions dispatcher syscall.
From
2009/4/22 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>:
> Igor Zhbanov <izh1979@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> This allow to use system calls in any extension modules without need to reserve
>> syscall number in kernel source and allow binaries to run correctly on
>> any kernel
>> (where that extension feature can have another syscall number).
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> You're trying to reinvent the vfs / device nodes / ioctls

Perhaps.
But in some cases syscalls are more convenient than reading/writing/ioctling
in /proc, /sys or /dev.

Now as I understand creating new syscalls for "home" use is not encourahed.
It is not guaranteed that tomorrow new syscall will not be introduced
in mainstream kernel. So portability issues is not considered for
"home" modules.

And I suggest to regulate syscalls usage and reserve a set of numbers
"home" modules used in some organizations only.

I don't think that they all will use only devices and /proc and /sys
to communicate
with their modules.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-22 16:49    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans