[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
re: the bouyer-quota2 branch
> > > > It doesn't make much sense to play __RENAME() games with it since
> > > > any old code will not compile against the new quotactl signature.
> > >
> > > that seems reasonable to me.
> > What do you propose then ? quotactl is the best name I can find for this
> > syscall ...
> quotactl2? quotapctl? quota_pctl? quotactl_the_next_generation?
> ... quota_king?
> Considering that quotactl is not used by programmers (unless they're
> hacking on the quota utils ;) I don't think we need to spend a lot
> of energy on picking the name. If we want to follow a common naming
> scheme for all syscalls which will take a plist (such as future mount?),
> we might want to spend a few minutes on it, though.
> (Just to explain the rationale for this nomenclatural crisis, yesterday
> I discovered that the changed signature broke some assumptions about
> syscall compat I'd made in makesyscalls.sh, and that caused the script
> to fail in a very-scratchingly way. I could just change makesyscalls.sh,
> but since I'd had made that assumption, it's possible others have too)
BTW, when i changed reboot(2) i added a char * to the signature.
(this was in 1996?) how does this affect your compat assumptions?
Main Index |
Thread Index |