Re: [DISCUSS] Making system calls more portable.

2007-01-07 Thread Theodore Tso
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 01:07:41AM -0800, Amit Choudhary wrote: > Now, let's say a vendor has linux_kernel_version_1 that has 300 > system calls. The vendor needs to give some extra functionality to > its customers and the way chosen is to implement new system call. > The new system call number is

Re: [DISCUSS] Making system calls more portable.

2007-01-07 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Jan 7 2007 01:07, Amit Choudhary wrote: > >I will come to the main issue later but I just wanted to point out >that we maintain information at two separate places - mapping >between the name and the number in user space and kernel space. >Shouldn't this duplication be removed. For example? Do

Re: [DISCUSS] Making system calls more portable.

2007-01-07 Thread Vadim Lobanov
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 00:15 -0800, Amit Choudhary wrote: > 1. Invoke a system call using its name. Pass its name to the kernel as an > argument of syscall() or > some other function. Probably may make the invocation of the system call > slower. If the name > doesn't match in the kernel then an er

Re: [DISCUSS] Making system calls more portable.

2007-01-07 Thread Rene Herman
On 01/07/2007 10:07 AM, Amit Choudhary wrote: However, people may say that, implementing custom system calls is not advocated by linux. And I think it is not advocated precisely because of this reason that they are not portable. True I guess. But do you want to live in a software environment w

Re: [DISCUSS] Making system calls more portable.

2007-01-07 Thread Amit Choudhary
--- Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >If we're limited to Linux kernels, this seems to not be the case. Great care >is taken in keeping >this userspace ABI stable -- new system calls are given new numbers. Old >system calls may >disappear (after a long grace period) but even then I don't

Re: [DISCUSS] Making system calls more portable.

2007-01-07 Thread Rene Herman
On 01/07/2007 09:15 AM, Amit Choudhary wrote: Well, system calls today are not portable mainly because they are invoked using a number and it may happen that a number 'N' may refer to systemcall_1() on one system/kernel and to systemcall_2() on another system/kernel. If we're limited to Linux

[DISCUSS] Making system calls more portable.

2007-01-07 Thread Amit Choudhary
Hi, I wanted to know if there is any inclination towards making system calls more portable. Please let me know if this discussion has happened before. Well, system calls today are not portable mainly because they are invoked using a number and it may happen that a number 'N' may refer to system