Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:04:09 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Mike Karels <karels@bsdi.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: syscall numbering Message-ID: <20010712130408.A6850@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <200107120234.f6C2YLC14835@redrock.eng.bsdi.com>; from karels@bsdi.com on Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 09:34:17PM -0500 References: <200107120234.f6C2YLC14835@redrock.eng.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 09:34:17PM -0500, Mike Karels wrote: > For now, I'm tempted to reserve 400-449 for BSD/OS customers. FreeBSD > seems to be using 300 up, to 374 currently, and BSD/OS calls are all > below that. Does this sound plausible? Does that leave enough for > FreeBSD expansion? Hmm, with only 25 unallocated in that window (300-399) it seems like it may not be enough to account for future kernel interface bloat over the lifetime of FreeBSD. e.g. suppose someone implements a new set of syscalls providing a new class of kernel interface -- something like AIO in existing FreeBSD which requires a number of syscalls, or the future kernel threads implementation, or expanded TrustedBSD support - there's only room in that window for another 2-3 or so sets and we'd have to expand downwards or something. Kris --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7TgK3Wry0BWjoQKURAtq/AJ9YiI7RssmoRVDmvmHwFJwGggl1egCdHAkC aRiBIPGfSuU6NmoirbpCZPQ= =bcMG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010712130408.A6850>