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 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 multiplexor.
And no change in the test program reflecting this 'flags' new param, so it
fails.
fd = syscall (__NR_indirect, &r, &i, sizeof (i));
should be fd = syscall (__NR_indirect, &r, &i, sizeof (i), 0);
int s2 = fcntl (fd, F_GETFD);
int t2 = fcntl (fd, F_GETFL);
printf ("new: FD_CLOEXEC %s set, NONBLOCK %s set\n",
s2 == 0 ? "not" : "is", (t2 & O_NONBLOCK) ? "is" : "not");
close (fd);
i.file_flags.flags = O_CLOEXEC;
sigset_t ss;
sigemptyset(&ss);
FILL_IN(r, __NR_signalfd, -1, (long) &ss, 8);
fd = syscall (__NR_indirect, &r, &i, sizeof (i));
same here ?
int s3 = fcntl (fd, F_GETFD);
printf ("signalfd: FD_CLOEXEC %s set\n", s3 == 0 ? "not" : "is");
close (fd);
FILL_IN(r, __NR_eventfd, 8);
fd = syscall (__NR_indirect, &r, &i, sizeof (i));
and here.
int s4 = fcntl (fd, F_GETFD);
printf ("eventfd: FD_CLOEXEC %s set\n", s4 == 0 ? "not" : "is");
close (fd);
return s1 != 0 || s2 == 0 || t1 != 0 || t2 == 0 || s3 == 0 || s4 == 0;
}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
