From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 5 01:20:36 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6683EA2F; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 01:20:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0325B1FF6; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 01:20:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (50-196-156-133-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.196.156.133]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s851KXQA029331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 4 Sep 2014 18:20:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <54090FDB.6090801@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 18:20:27 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Can anyone help clarify details about the FreeBSD system call interface? References: <2041449.H6lUHcsTDl@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <2041449.H6lUHcsTDl@ralph.baldwin.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Benjamin Kaduk , kib@freebsd.org, Steven Stewart-Gallus X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 01:20:36 -0000 On 9/4/14, 7:06 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 05:30:01 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Steven Stewart-Gallus wrote: >>>> svn blame says that the whole implementation dates from r1541. >>>> Looks like >>>> it was never implemented. Some googling indicates that it was a >>>> plannedroutine to set the stack size, which was never implemented, >>>> anywhere. >>>> >>>> The locking comments were added in r79224, but the implementation is >>>> otherwise from r1541, i.e., it was never implemented. >>> Alright, so sys/kern/syscalls.master can be patched somewhat like so >>> and I won't need to document them? >>> >>> -72 AUE_O_VADVISE STD { int ovadvise(int anom); } vadvise \ >>> - ovadvise_args int >>> +72 AUE_NULL OBSOL ovadvise >>> >>> -70 AUE_SSTK STD { int sstk(int incr); } >>> +70 AUE_SSTK OBSOL sstk >> I don't think so; I think that would be a regression. >> >> We do currently provide implementations for these syscalls, that just >> happen to always return failure. I think that the OBSOL annotation >> corresponds to a complete lack of implementation. Perhaps it would be >> acceptable at a major release boundary, but this is not my area of >> expertise. > For these two calls, I doubt anything is actually using them. They've been > stubs since the Mach VM was imported into BSD in 1990. We don't ship a system > call for creat() anymore either. In this particular case, I think it would be > more of a feature if those symbols disappeared from libc and caused link > errors. have we ever shipped code for creat? if we lose teh ability to run FreeBSD 1.1 chroots I'll be most upset.. it's a great selling point when pointing out our commitment to ABI stability and backwards portability.