On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 10:28 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 28 August 2006 10:19, David Miller wrote:
>
> > I see it as duplication because the person who writes the
> > kernel is the one who ends up writing the libc syscall
> > bits or explains to the libc person for that arch how
> > things work.
>
> And the way to explain it is to write the reference code.
That's a new and interesting thing to add to the list of things
that /usr/include/linux is _not_:
/usr/include/linux is _not_ a place to dump "reference code" in lieu of
documentation on using kernel interfaces.
Besides, the _syscallX implementations in the kernel were generally
unsuitable for use in that way anyway -- I'd be much more inclined to
rely on the libc version. The kernel version would do strange things
like break with PIC code by using an unavailable register (i386),
misalign 64-bit syscall arguments on 32-bit machines (MIPS), etc.
> > And once one libc implmenetation of this
> > exists, it can be used as a reference for other libc
> > variants.
>
> At least on x86-64 various glibc versions had quite buggy
> syscall()s, that is why I never trusted it very much.
I assume these were very _early_ glibc in when the port was new?
> > Finally, once it's done, it's done, and that's it.
>
> Except if you still have to deal with old user land.
The limited subset of old userland which elected to use _syscallX()
instead of libc's syscall(), and which can be fixed fairly easily.
--
dwmw2
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
