On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Nadia Derbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, what I've started working on these days is replace the proc > interface by a syscall to set the next_syscall_data field: I think this > might help us avoid defining a precise list of the new syscalls we need?
Isn't that just sys_indirect(), but split into two syscall invocations rather than one? Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
