Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:30:48 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Danny J. Zerkel" <dzerkel@columbus.rr.com>, "Vladimir B. Grebenschikov,Moscow,408-7227,123-4567,Some-info" <vova@express.ru>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: short uid/gid Message-ID: <20021016093048.GB10908@vega.vega.com> In-Reply-To: <3DAD2B79.AD5412CA@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021016004135.36711H-100000@fledge.watson.org> <3DAD2B79.AD5412CA@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:03:53AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: > > While I think support for the IPC_64 flag under emulation is useful, I'd > > rather make use of compatibility system calls and type improvements for > > the base FreeBSD implementation of the System V IPC APIs. Most of the > > work necessary to support those changes is required in order to better > > support fine-grained locking and MAC (breaking out the user and kernel > > structures). Also, it means future applications will make use of the > > improved APIs by default. In addition, other systems, such as Solaris, > > have already made this change in this way, avoiding the IPC_64 flag > > design. > > You could also simply use non-intersecting cmd parameter values > for the new calls, which avaids the special flag, and leaves the > backward compatability without adding grundles of new system calls. What about source-level compatibility, which IMO is a good thing, at least if it doesn't add too much complexity (it clearly doesn't in this case)? Also, handling single flag should be easier from the coding perspective than a load of new values, after all we can do something like: #define IPC_STAT_OLD 0xXY #define IPC_SET_OLD 0xZW [...] #define IPC_64 0x100 #define IPC_STAT (IPC_STAT_OLD | IPC_64) #define IPC_SET (IPC_SET_OLD | IPC_64) [...] Which automagically will bring 64-version of syscalls after recompilation, while retaining ABI compatibility. -Maxim > I thought that everything was going to 64 bits and we were getting > a new system call entry vector in 5.x, anyway... wasn't Matt going > to do something like that? > > -- Terry 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?20021016093048.GB10908>