tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation

In article <>,
Mindaugas Rasiukevicius  <> wrote:
>Adam Hamsik <> 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.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index