Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation

[lucio%proxima.alt.za@localhost]

> Finally, on the ever-so-fascinating meta-discussion front, I think
> these should be regular syscalls for now.

I'm only a superficial follower of kernel developments, so take this
with a pinch of salt.  I did understand that NetBSD uses syscall
groups to streamline the operation of modules and this seems like a
good place to use such grouping, rather than try to shoehorn all *at()
syscalls into a single function.  But, I thought this would be
obvious, so it's easier for me to believe that I'm talking out of
turn.

Feel free to show me what I'm missing, private mail may be preferable.

++L