Re: Proposal to obsolete SYS_pipe

[Valery Ushakov <uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost>]

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 01:29:42 +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:

> In article <ba9f8f1b-66c7-1168-f17b-c7e88bcf0a18%gmx.com@localhost>,
> Kamil Rytarowski  <n54%gmx.com@localhost> wrote:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >On 25.12.2017 17:43, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >> On Dec 25,  4:42pm, n54%gmx.com@localhost (Kamil Rytarowski) wrote:
> >> -- Subject: Re: Proposal to obsolete SYS_pipe
> >> 
> >> | I've extracted two changes from the original mail:
> >> | 
> >> | https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2017/12/25/msg022836.html
> >> 
> >> Yes, the first patch is exactly what I had in mind; remove the
> >> assembly stubs from libc and make pipe() a wrapper for pipe2().
> >> The second patch sounds good too, but it is not in the email...
> >> 
> >> christos
> >> 
> >
> >I've included the missing patch in the subsequent mail:
> >
> >https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2017/12/25/msg022840.html
> >
> >Patch (pasted here for the reference):
> >
> >http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00041-refactor-pipe1.txt
> 
> I am good with both since they eliminate the MD code and simplify
> the MI code. The only drawback is that sys_pipe (the system call)
> is not handled directly anymore by libc, but that's not an issue
> except for the slight performance loss (which does not really matter
> the moment you start doing I/O).

Why can't we just leave pipe() alone?  There are other syscalls that
return two values, e.g. fork.  The MD asm stubs are trivial and they
are already written.  They've been there for ages.  Why the sudden
desire to "create movment"?

The pipe1() change is a good thing, OTOH.

-uwe