Re: [PATCHv4 0/6] sys_indirect system call

2007-11-20 Thread Ulrich Drepper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Zach Brown wrote: > I'm sure the additional parameter will be needed, and it might be pretty > involved. I think the current notion of syslets needs, at the very least: All correct. I just want to point out that the proposed interface is

Re: [PATCHv4 0/6] sys_indirect system call

2007-11-20 Thread Zach Brown
> This was mentioned in one of my mails. I added the parameter to > accommodate Linus's and Zack's idea to use the functionality for syslets > as well. Not really a multiplexer, it is meant to be a "execute > synchronously or asynchronously" flag. In the latter case an additional > parameter

Re: [PATCHv4 0/6] sys_indirect system call

2007-11-20 Thread Ulrich Drepper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Eric Dumazet wrote: > I am wondering if some parts are missing from your ChangeLog > > You apparently added in v3 a new 'flags' parameter to indirect syscall > but no trace of this change in Changelog, and why it was added. This > seems to imply a

Re: [PATCHv4 0/6] sys_indirect system call

2007-11-20 Thread Eric Dumazet
Ulrich Drepper a écrit : wing patches provide an alternative implementation of the sys_indirect system call which has been discussed a few times. This no system call allows us to extend existing system call interfaces with adding more system calls. I am wondering if some parts are missing from

Re: [PATCHv4 0/6] sys_indirect system call

2007-11-20 Thread Eric Dumazet
Ulrich Drepper a écrit : wing patches provide an alternative implementation of the sys_indirect system call which has been discussed a few times. This no system call allows us to extend existing system call interfaces with adding more system calls. I am wondering if some parts are missing from

Re: [PATCHv4 0/6] sys_indirect system call

2007-11-20 Thread Ulrich Drepper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Eric Dumazet wrote: I am wondering if some parts are missing from your ChangeLog You apparently added in v3 a new 'flags' parameter to indirect syscall but no trace of this change in Changelog, and why it was added. This seems to imply a future

Re: [PATCHv4 0/6] sys_indirect system call

2007-11-20 Thread Ulrich Drepper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Zach Brown wrote: I'm sure the additional parameter will be needed, and it might be pretty involved. I think the current notion of syslets needs, at the very least: All correct. I just want to point out that the proposed interface is sufficiently

Re: [PATCHv4 0/6] sys_indirect system call

2007-11-20 Thread Zach Brown
This was mentioned in one of my mails. I added the parameter to accommodate Linus's and Zack's idea to use the functionality for syslets as well. Not really a multiplexer, it is meant to be a execute synchronously or asynchronously flag. In the latter case an additional parameter might be

[PATCHv4 0/6] sys_indirect system call

2007-11-19 Thread Ulrich Drepper
wing patches provide an alternative implementation of the sys_indirect system call which has been discussed a few times. This no system call allows us to extend existing system call interfaces with adding more system calls. Davide's previous implementation is IMO far more complex than warranted.

[PATCHv4 0/6] sys_indirect system call

2007-11-19 Thread Ulrich Drepper
wing patches provide an alternative implementation of the sys_indirect system call which has been discussed a few times. This no system call allows us to extend existing system call interfaces with adding more system calls. Davide's previous implementation is IMO far more complex than warranted.