On 03/08, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > On 03/08/2010 08:44 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > I don't think this is big matter. Does using syscall have any benefit? > > I don't have strong mention. merely, Timo's original proposal used > > prctl. > > Syscalls don't have to go through the multiplexer in grab bag calls like > prctl, ioctl, etc. And they are more reliably to test for at runtime. > An ENOSYS error is unmistakably clear. An EINVAL error, as returned by > prctl when encountering an unknown function argument, could also mean > the argument isn't valid. That's a common problem of most multiplexer > syscalls and a reason why they should be avoided.
Agreed, but this applies to any prtcl() request. And we already have PR_GET_NAME/PR_SET_NAME which is very close to PR_SET_PROCTITLE_AREA. So, do you really think that this particular case deserves the new syscall? Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
