From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Jul 12 13:14:35 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from sneakerz.org (sneakerz.org [216.33.66.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181C137B407 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:14:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@sneakerz.org) Received: by sneakerz.org (Postfix, from userid 1092) id B40E95D01F; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 15:14:32 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 15:14:32 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Kris Kennaway Cc: Mike Karels , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: syscall numbering Message-ID: <20010712151432.F4589@sneakerz.org> References: <200107120234.f6C2YLC14835@redrock.eng.bsdi.com> <20010712130408.A6850@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20010712130408.A6850@xor.obsecurity.org>; from kris@obsecurity.org on Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 01:04:09PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Kris Kennaway [010712 15:04] wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 09:34:17PM -0500, Mike Karels wrote: > > > For now, I'm tempted to reserve 400-449 for BSD/OS customers. FreeBSD > > seems to be using 300 up, to 374 currently, and BSD/OS calls are all > > below that. Does this sound plausible? Does that leave enough for > > FreeBSD expansion? > > Hmm, with only 25 unallocated in that window (300-399) it seems like > it may not be enough to account for future kernel interface bloat over > the lifetime of FreeBSD. e.g. suppose someone implements a new set of > syscalls providing a new class of kernel interface -- something like > AIO in existing FreeBSD which requires a number of syscalls, or the > future kernel threads implementation, or expanded TrustedBSD support - > there's only room in that window for another 2-3 or so sets and we'd > have to expand downwards or something. I really don't see a problem if we make sure that at a later date we revisit the issue and ask for another window to be reserved for our usage. Let's accept this for the time being and update our syscalls.master to remind people not to infringe upon the BSD/os reserved syscall space. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] Ok, who wrote this damn function called '??'? And why do my programs keep crashing in it? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message