Service routines that take structure pointers aren't a problem so long as the structure is part of the interface and not the actual kernel implementation structure.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on > 03/21/2008 > at 05:20 PM, Kirk Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >This distinction has no analog in modern operating > >systems, where interfaces are expressed *entirely* by APIs and service > >routines, and not by skipping through PSA->ASCB->etc.etc. > > That's certainly the preference in *ix systems, but it's not always what > happens. Take tool for manipulating file systems. Or look at standard > services routines that take structure arguments, typically via pointers. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT > ISO position; see > <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html<http://patriot.net/%7Eshmuel/resume/brief.html> > > > We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. > (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
