Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:17:00 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> 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 Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/sys Makefile.inc Message-ID: <200007312117.OAA66719@netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20000731195522.C70236@lucifer.bart.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. I would prefer that we changed all the syscall entry points to have sys_ prefixes. I know NetBSD has done this but I don't know their particular reasons. One thing though - it makes it more obvious what is callable from ddb and what is not. eg: 'call sync' looks harmless but will die because the syscall context is not present. 'call sys_sync' is obviously wrong. We could provide a real ddb-callable sync() function for ddb. I suspect that this argument would become a bikeshed argument before long though. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 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?200007312117.OAA66719>