Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:10:56 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au (Stephen McKay), swallace@ece.uci.edu, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SYSCALL IDEAS [Was: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sysv_msg.c sysv_sem.c Message-ID: <199510232210.QAA23005@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199510232105.OAA11752@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199510230953.TAA22795@orion.devetir.qld.gov.au> <199510232105.OAA11752@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > We need a better way to handle these syscall subcodes (as SYSV > > > calls 'em). > > > > Is it not true that this System V stuff can be written as library > > routines that use BSD facilities such as mmap() and sockets? I > > would be happy to see the effort expended this way so that I can > > keep my kernel free of such cruft. > > This assumes: > > 1) The SYSV code uses shared libraries > 2) Someone (you?) has written library replacements so that > real SYSV shared libraries need not be used > 3) No one is interested in running statically linked IBCS2 > binaries, only dynamically linked ones. I think Stephen is implying that instead of adding the code to do the syscalls inside the kernel, you could somehow 'call' a library routine which is external to the kernel. If you could do such a thing, then none of the above are applicable. But, I believe the current 'macro-kernel' system used in BSD precludes us doing such things. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510232210.QAA23005>