Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 12:36:09 +0200 From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> To: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: Eric Lemar <eric.lemar@isilon.com>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: *at family of syscalls in FreeBSD Message-ID: <20070609103609.GA52234@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <86myzadv21.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <20070604162430.GA76813@freebsd.org> <896DB1FBFFD5A145833D9DA08CA12A85051A7F@seaxch07.desktop.isilon.com> <20070606074429.GA42032@freebsd.org> <4666F0FB.8020101@FreeBSD.org> <20070607070455.GA71012@freebsd.org> <896DB1FBFFD5A145833D9DA08CA12A85051A84@seaxch07.desktop.isilon.com> <20070607210313.GA603@freebsd.org> <896DB1FBFFD5A145833D9DA08CA12A85051A87@seaxch07.desktop.isilon.com> <20070608161322.GA27624@freebsd.org> <86myzadv21.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:56:38PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote:
> Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 05:56:39PM -0700, Eric Lemar wrote:
> > > Obviously I prefer the wrapping, but I'm just a tad biased :)
> > well.. unless I hear some strong voice to change what I have I am not
> > changing it. it can always be changed in future.
>
> I would strongly urge you to consider following Eric's suggestion; it is
> conceptually far cleaner.
ok, that was the strong voice I wanted to hear :) the patch is here:
www.vlakno.cz/~rdivacky/linux_at.patch
changes:
I consistently use the mode of having
kern_foo() {
return kern_fooat(..., AT_FDCWD);
}
and kern_fooat() being the complete syscall calling the kern_get_at(). There is no
kern_common_foo() anymore.
the only comment from Eric now is the flags parameter but I don't think we should implement
it right now as we don't have any use for it so the patch is ok as it is. we will add the
flags parameter once we implement some functionality using it.
comments?
roman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070609103609.GA52234>