Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
These *at*() calls have been defined in 2001, I would guess this is some time before dtrace came up and truss(1) deals with them.... ¯A _______________________________________________ dtrace-discuss mailing list dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org
