Le 15/08/2017 à 16:38, Martin Husemann a écrit :
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 04:33:19PM +0200, Maxime Villard wrote:So we agree? Each compat should be independent.Yes.It seems to me that re-implementing (copy-paste) a few functions for linux is a step towards direction, isn't it?No, it isn't (but it MAY be ok for real trivial ones). Untangling the maze, renaming the common functions and fixing the modularization for them is the way to go, IMO.
You can't rename them, since they are used by the real COMPAT_xx options; eg, compat_43_sys_lseek can't be renamed to compat_common_sys_lseek, since it is the COMPAT_43-specific version. This version *happens* to be compatible with that of linux, so it's borrowed from compat_linux, for no other reason than not duplicating code, and at the cost of an inextricable implementation. Also, after giving a closer look, it is not possible to ship the compat functions by default and have several modules that just register the syscalls, since within these functions, there are still many #ifdef COMPAT. And that's why I think that the compat_43_*/etc functions used in linux should be re-implemented... Maxime