Nicolas Williams writes: > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:44:05PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This pig isn't very attractive. Is a system call number shortage the > > > underlying problem? And is the fix to this ultimately about fixing the > > > syscall number shortage? > > > > grouping several "syscalls" under a single entry is nothting new. > > I am aware. However, I think, e.g., unlinkat(2) should be just like > unlink(2), from a DTrace syscall provider p.o.v. Adam called this a > "pig" for a reason; I agree with that characterization.
The problem is really in the distinction between section two of the man pages (the historical "system call" interface) and the real OpenSolaris system call interface that dtrace exposes as syscall. Dtrace syscall isn't the same thing as man page section two, as the former is an undocumented implementation detail and the latter is a standard interface. I agree that it'd be nice to throw a few bones at the poor user when he does something "obvious" and still wrong, but I agree that it's just a pig. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ dtrace-discuss mailing list dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org
