:> As for the "generic" syscall mechanism, I'd love it. I think that
:> there are many places where "names" would be good, instead of
:> hardcoded numbers. The only problem is to find a way to do that
:> without reducing performance. names are good. just try to see what it
:> would be if filenames were replaced by inodes. I think that having a
:> name-based mechanism makes it easier to add new syscalls or reject
:> deprecated ones.
:
:Performance is not much of an issue. A perfect hash can be generated
:for syscall names.
This is a bad idea. One of the reasons why it is so easy for us to
write portability modules for Sun, Linux, etc... is because of the
hard-coded syscall numbers. Syscalls work plenty well enough as they
are now, we do not need a new mechansm.
:> (thanks to svr4 lobbying into posix:).
:> - add a closeall macro to call it.
:>
:> this gives both aix and netbsd compat (and if the fcntl thing goes into
:> netbsd, the compat would be full).
:
:I really do not care for using fcntl with this. fcntl operates on a
:single file descriptor -- F_CLOSEM mucks up the interface.
:
:--
:Jacques Vidrine / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mmap() is overloaded for MAP_ANON. fcntl() may not be perfect, but
it's better then adding a new syscall.
The libc closeall() code (I'm assuming that Mouss does not intend to
actually use a #define) could do the fcntl(), and if it fails fall
back to close()ing descriptors in a loop. Perfect!
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
