Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:29:41 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Dirk GOUDERS <gouders@et.bocholt.fh-ge.de> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Sergey Uvarov <uvarovsl@mail.pnpi.spb.ru> Subject: Re: preferable way to control kernel module Message-ID: <200508111329.42154.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200508111616.j7BGGZWG055221@sora.hank.home> References: <200508111616.j7BGGZWG055221@sora.hank.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 11 August 2005 12:16 pm, Dirk GOUDERS wrote: > > > Thank you for advise. But I wonder: what is wrong with syscall > > > approach (via SYSCALL_MODULE macro)? > > > > I just haven't done one personally. I think there's also a lot more > > potenti al > > for collisions when trying to pick a syscall number versus picking a > > string name for a sysctl or /dev entry. > > Shouldn't that be no problem if he sets the offset parameter to > SYSCALL_MODULE to NO_SYSCALL (get the next free offset)? But then you have to communicate the syscall number out to your userland applications somehow, and the applications have to know how to invoke a syscall by hand (perhaps they could use the syscall() function, but still). -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200508111329.42154.jhb>