Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:25:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <jruigrok@via-net-works.nl> Cc: Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, peter@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/sys Makefile.inc Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000731142149.62978B-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20000731195522.C70236@lucifer.bart.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > -On [20000731 19:50], Luoqi Chen (luoqi@watermarkgroup.com) wrote: > >Why don't we prefix all syscalls with sys_? > > It would solve namespace clashes at least. > > I am curious about other reasons why or why not. Well, sys_ is still in the application namespace. _whatever might make sense, and is what I've been using when I need to wrap the syscall with a libc wrapper. For example, int _cap_get_proc(struct cap *) and struct cap *cap_get_proc(void) The syscall fills out an existing struct in userland, whereas the POSIX call malloc's space and invokes the syscall. For syscalls that can be directly accessed, I use the stub code generated by libc: int extattr_get_file(...) Robert N M Watson robert@fledge.watson.org http://www.watson.org/~robert/ PGP key fingerprint: AF B5 5F FF A6 4A 79 37 ED 5F 55 E9 58 04 6A B1 TIS Labs at Network Associates, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000731142149.62978B-100000>