:
: > Why not just track the opens independantly in the overloading code?
:
:I'm not sure I know what you mean. I don't just need to track
:multiple open/closes, I need to be able to hang a pointer off of
:something that I can get at durning an mmap() or ioctl() syscall so
:that I can tell wh
Matt Dillon writes:
> :To handle the multiple open problem, I'm overloading the open and
> :close system calls. Upon open, I call the native open, then I grovel
> :around in the process' open file table looking for my special file.
> :When I find it, I mark fp->f_nextread with a magic number
* Andrew Gallatin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010112 15:29] wrote:
>
> Julian Elischer writes:
> > >
> > > Isn't this gross? Is there a better way?
> >
> > I think that the better way is to actually have each open have a
> > different minor number.
> > i.e. each process opens a different copy.
:To handle the multiple open problem, I'm overloading the open and
:close system calls. Upon open, I call the native open, then I grovel
:around in the process' open file table looking for my special file.
:When I find it, I mark fp->f_nextread with a magic number, then store
:a pointer to the pe
Julian Elischer writes:
> >
> > Isn't this gross? Is there a better way?
>
> I think that the better way is to actually have each open have a
> different minor number.
> i.e. each process opens a different copy.
> The way to achieve this best is with cloning devices.
> apply within p
Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>
> >
>
> To handle the multiple open problem, I'm overloading the open and
> close system calls. Upon open, I call the native open, then I grovel
> around in the process' open file table looking for my special file.
> When I find it, I mark fp->f_nextread with a magic n
* Andrew Gallatin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010111 20:13] wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 11, 2001 3:12 PM, Alfred Perlstein
> > [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > > * Carl Makin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010111 14:52] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are a couple of linux kernel modules that I'd love
> On Thursday, January 11, 2001 3:12 PM, Alfred Perlstein
> [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > * Carl Makin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010111 14:52] wrote:
> > >
> > > There are a couple of linux kernel modules that I'd love to run under
> > > FreeBSD. I've always assumed that I'd have to rewr
Is there a possibility of a generalized interface where any linux kernel module
could be loaded, in the event that the linux emulator were loaded? Or would
this require running the linux kernel in RAM, and therefore running two virtual
machines?
On Thursday, January 11, 2001 3:12 PM, Alfred P
