Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

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.

-- 
Mindaugas