Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation

[David Laight <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost>]

On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 02:30:20AM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius 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.

Why not, it is just a matter of how a 'name' is attached to the kernel
code.  Syscall numbers aren't a restricted space, so one per entry point
isn't a problem. Any additional form of multiplexing is just pointless
complication.

As well as the linux socket syscall, there is also the complete fubar
of the was SCTP overloads setsockopt()!

        David

-- 
David Laight: david%l8s.co.uk@localhost