Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:05:30 +1000 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Net posting: SCO gets Linux emulation Message-ID: <199709101405.AAA00810@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 Sep 1997 18:11:26 MST." <16911.873767486@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Could be interesting and/or instructional, yes? Moderately. It's somewhat barer-bones than our support so far. They list 162 system calls in their dispatch list, and give 14 as "nosys". Another 61 are implemented as returning ENOSYS, ie. they implement 87 system calls to some degree. They list the following syscalls that we don't : getsid fdatasync (+) sysctl (*)(+) mlock (*)(+) munlock (*)(+) mlockall (+) munlockall (+) sched_setparam (+) sched_getparam (+) sched_setscheduler (+) sched_getsheduler (+) sched_yield (+) sched_get_priority_max (+) sched_get_priority_min (+) sched_rr_get_interval (+) (*) We could implement these, but don't. (+) They don't actually implement these, just list them. We have 146 system calls listed, 4 marked unimplemented. There are 41 ENOSYS returns, ie. we implement 101 system calls. There are a substantial number of ioctls for which they return ENOSYS, most of which we have already implemented. This is all pretty unscientific; without sitting down and doing a one-to-one comparison it's a bit difficult to convey the relative "feel" of the two emulations. mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709101405.AAA00810>