[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation
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
As well as the linux socket syscall, there is also the complete fubar
of the was SCTP overloads setsockopt()!
David Laight: david%l8s.co.uk@localhost
Main Index |
Thread Index |