On 10/10/2012 05:54 AM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Kees,
>
>> +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(finit_module, int, fd, const char __user *, uargs)
>
> Given the repeated experience of the last few years--new system calls
> that are in essence revisions of older system calls with a 'flags'
> argument bolted on to allow more flexible behavior (e.g., accept4(),
> dup3(), utimensat(), epoll_create1(), pipe2(), inotify_init(1), and so
> on.)--maybe it is worth considering adding a 'flags' bit mask
> argument[1] to the finti_module() system call now, to allow for
> possible future extensions to the behavior of the interface. What do
> you think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
>
> [1] Yes, I know that init_module() doesn't have a flags argument, but
> that interface was added when we'd seen fewer of the kinds of cases
> listed above.
>
Then maybe go whole hog and make it an init_module_at() system call
(allowing NULL for the pathname half to implement finit_module())...?
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
