Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20091004013107.073D263B102%mail.netbsd.org@localhost>,
Mindaugas Rasiukevicius  <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>Adam Hamsik <haaaad%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
>> > Here is last version of openat/fstatat diff I have written atf tests  
>> > for it and tested my patch by doing build(checks namei) and zfs 
>> > (checks openat/fstatat) + atf tests. Both cases were working. Can  
>> > put these syscalls in ?
>> 
>> As usual I forgot to attach patch file here is it
>
>I still think that we should not start spreading *at() syscalls, but rather
>have one syscall to handle them.  While it is pointless to dholland, I would
>say it is a better structure and would probably reduce some code duplication.

But it would make trace display annoying. I don't want us to be like linux
and socketcall(). Since the arguments are different you'd need a switch
and the creative use of void *. Let's not go that way.

christos