|From:||Ulrich Drepper <drepper-AT-redhat.com>|
|To:||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
|Subject:||sys_indirect or many syscalls?|
|Date:||Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:27:46 -0700|
|Cc:||kernel list <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Linux, will you please make a decision regarding sys_indirect? There has been no other proposal so the alternative is to add more syscalls. This really is a problem. For one instance, see http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443321 The problem is actually a socket call and we cannot reliably set the CLOEXEC bit without massive program slowdowns. This is just one example. I still think the sys_indirect method is the best since it avoids bloat in the number of system calls. - -- ? Ulrich Drepper ? Red Hat, Inc. ? 444 Castro St ? Mountain View, CA ? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkgMM+IACgkQ2ijCOnn/RHRwiQCfXzlb3ihLjJTfgEXIK9BObyvx H6oAoJBRj4c8lfePA8+GWzRzJXSdss95 =pnY+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds