User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

sys_indirect or many syscalls?

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
Message-ID:  <480C33E2.7060101@redhat.com>
Cc:  kernel list <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>
Archive-link:  Article

-----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-----


(Log in to post comments)


Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds