[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation
On Oct 4, 3:43am, rmind%netbsd.org@localhost (Mindaugas Rasiukevicius) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation
| christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas) wrote:
| > >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.
| - Not sure if ktrace should dictate how to write kernel interfaces. :)
| - Is there any reason why ktrace could not be improved?
Well, still that does not solve the void * problem... And think about it
a different way. One of my biggest annoyances in the kernel is the way
kauth passes arguments trying to homogenize calling conventions and abusing
void * for varargs. I don't want to have to debug syscall code doing the same.
Main Index |
Thread Index |