Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:57:17 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sbufs in userland Message-ID: <26415.983257037@critter> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:16:27 %2B1100." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102271701190.23480-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102271701190.23480-100000@besplex.bde.org>, Bruce Ev ans writes: >So everyone agrees that sbufs are a mistake :-). The kernel should use >the same interfaces as userland for general things like printf() and >malloc() (oops, too late), if it needs such interfaces at all, so that >programmers can reuse their knowledge of userland. However, I doubt >that general string handling in the kernel is needed often enough to >justify having sbuf or funopen. No we dont argee on that. *if* the kernel can use the same API it should, but most often it can't. strlen() comes to mind as an API where it can't use it. In the kernel strlen should return an error code if it tries to access non-accessible memory, rather than core-dumping as it does in userland. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?26415.983257037>