lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] Cross Memory Attach v2 (resend)
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 09:06:24 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:28:47 +1030
> > Christopher Yeoh <cyeoh@au1.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Resending just in case the previous mail was missed rather than ignored :-)
> > > I'd appreciate any comments....
> >
> > Fear, uncertainty, doubt and resistance!
> >
> > We have a bit of a track record of adding cool-looking syscalls and
> > then regretting it a few years later. Few people use them, and maybe
> > they weren't so cool after all, and we have to maintain them for ever.
>
> They are often cut off at the libc level and never get into apps.
>
> If we had tools/libc/ (mapped by the kernel automagically via the vDSO), where
> people could add new syscall usage to actual, existing, real-life libc functions,
> where the improvements could thus propagate into thousands of apps immediately,
> without requiring any rebuild of apps or even any touching of the user-space
> installation, we'd probably have _much_ more lively development in this area.
>
> Right now it's slow and painful, and few new syscalls can break through the brick
> wall of implementation latency, app adoption disinterest due to backwards
> compatibility limitations and the resulting inevitable lack of testing and lack of
> tangible utility.

Can't people use libc's syscall(2)?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-26 09:47    [W:0.090 / U:6.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site