sys_indirect or many syscalls?

sys_indirect or many syscalls?

[Ulrich Drepper]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Linux,

will you please make a decision regarding sys_indirect?  There has been
no other proposal so the alternative is to add more syscalls.

This really is a problem.  For one instance, see

  http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443321

The problem is actually a socket call and we cannot reliably set the
CLOEXEC bit without massive program slowdowns.  This is just one example.

I still think the sys_indirect method is the best since it avoids bloat
in the number of system calls.

- --
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkgMM+IACgkQ2ijCOnn/RHRwiQCfXzlb3ihLjJTfgEXIK9BObyvx
H6oAoJBRj4c8lfePA8+GWzRzJXSdss95
=pnY+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: sys_indirect or many syscalls?

[Al Viro]

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:27:46PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:

> I still think the sys_indirect method is the best since it avoids bloat
> in the number of system calls.

The same could be (and had been) said about ioctl(2)...