Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:16:07 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.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: <42FBC017.6050000@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200508111813.j7BIDeFP055360@sora.hank.home> References: <200508111813.j7BIDeFP055360@sora.hank.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dirk GOUDERS wrote: > > >>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) In the past, I've used a sysctl to communicate out the syscall number. you only need to do the syscall once, and it confirms to the program that the syscall is correctly installed.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42FBC017.6050000>