On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> wrote: > 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())...?
Good point. A "whole hog" openat()-style interface is worth thinking about too. -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Author of "The Linux Programming Interface"; http://man7.org/tlpi/ -- 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/
