From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755267AbYDUGbR (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:31:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751061AbYDUGbI (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:31:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:54326 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750792AbYDUGbF (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:31:05 -0400 Message-ID: <480C33E2.7060101@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:27:46 -0700 From: Ulrich Drepper User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080407) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: kernel list Subject: sys_indirect or many syscalls? X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org -----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-----