From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263820AbUECSaL (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2004 14:30:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263823AbUECSaL (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2004 14:30:11 -0400 Received: from palrel12.hp.com ([156.153.255.237]:59800 "EHLO palrel12.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263820AbUECSaG (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2004 14:30:06 -0400 From: David Mosberger MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16534.36778.587011.400850@napali.hpl.hp.com> Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 11:30:02 -0700 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: davidm@hpl.hp.com, Andrew Morton , bunk@fs.tum.de, eyal@eyal.emu.id.au, linux-dvb-maintainer@linuxtv.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.6-rc3: modular DVB tda1004x broken In-Reply-To: References: <408F9BD8.8000203@eyal.emu.id.au> <20040501201342.GL2541@fs.tum.de> <20040501161035.67205a1f.akpm@osdl.org> <20040501175134.243b389c.akpm@osdl.org> <16534.35355.671554.321611@napali.hpl.hp.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.18 under Emacs 21.3.1 Reply-To: davidm@hpl.hp.com X-URL: http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/David_Mosberger/ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> On Mon, 3 May 2004 11:20:35 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds said: Linus> On Mon, 3 May 2004, David Mosberger wrote: >> Why not just disallow user-level use of the _syscall() macros. Linus> I'm thinking we should disallow the system-calls Linus> entirely. User mode should be using their own macros, and Linus> kernel mode should just do the function call directly. I totally agree. (Note that syscall() is a libc-provided routine. The kernel has nothing to do with it.) Linus> How much work would that be? I suspect it would be less work Linus> than worrying about the existing strange interfaces. Yes. On ia64, I held off on getting rid of kernel-internal syscalls entirely because I was too lazy to do kernel_thread(). However, a while ago, there was a bug that forced us to implement kernel_thread() via a direct call. Lo and behold, the resulting code was not only a lot faster, but it turned out to be short and clean, too. Very likely the situation would be similar for the other architectures that have been holding off on implementing the kernel syscalls via direct calls. --david