On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:28:24AM -0800, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 10:35:12AM +0000, Steve Woodford wrote:
> 
>  > Are there any objections to changing struct emul's e_name field from
>  > 
>  > 	char e_name[8];
>  > to
>  > 	const char *e_name;
>  > 
>  > Cheers, Steve
> 
> Doing that would cause you to have to do two kvm reads (one to get emul,
> one to get emul->e_name), but even so, I think it's the right thing to do.

Hm... the trivial workaround would be to use "aout68k" as the name... but
I guess, that overhead only happens once per exec() ?

	-is