[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation
Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost> wrote:
> Finally, on the ever-so-fascinating meta-discussion front, I think
> these should be regular syscalls for now. Maybe the variety people
> are on to something, but conversion can happen later if some day there
> is sensible infrastructure in place. I'm especially worried about the
> extra complexity Christos already mentioned.
Meta-discussion or not, but moving syscalls is not desirable. Nor I am
keen to see *at() calls spreading left and right in the kernel.
It is quite simple abstraction to implement. And I doubt that ktrace would
need complex super-powers to be able to handle it.
Main Index |
Thread Index |