In article <200212092056.gB9Kuuk00824@s102-n054.tele2.cz>,
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@netbsd.org> wrote:

The code size should not be that bad, and it a avoids lots of code
duplication.

christos

>It would make LKMs a bit more painful. I'd say if it's ain't broken,
>don't fix it. Also, there is different issue that not all the emuls
>really would use all the functions provided by compat_file.c, so
>it would perhaps bring a bit more unnecessary code into custom
>kernels.
>
>I'd really wish someone would write /dev/ksyms. It could even
>support ELF only nowadays. That would make emulation LKMs _so_ much
>easier to use. Any takers?
>
>Jaromir
>
>Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
>> Hi all
>> 
>> We have several emulation where file related system calls are plain BSD,
>> 100% compatible with our native implementation. But because we have to
>> check for an alternte path in /emul/*, we define them several times. 
>> 
>> In order to share some code, I made sys/compat/common/comat_file.c which
>> implements all native file related system calls with an alternate path
>> check. I use it for darwin emulation, now it would be interesting to
>> change other emulation so that they use it too. 
>> 
>> We have aout, aoutm68k, freebsd, and some bits of sunos and ultrix that
>> could use theses system calls instead of duplicating them. I can do the
>> changes, but I will be unable to check that things are not broken.
>> Anyone that use theses emulations would like to test a patch for me (or
>> better do the change)?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Emmanuel Dreyfus
>> manu@netbsd.org
>> 
>
>
>-- 
>Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>            http://www.NetBSD.org/
>-=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the tantric    -=-
>-=- Buddhist masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you -=-
>-=- sometimes levitate or glow.   Do not let this distract you.''     -=-