Subject: Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:34:32 -0700

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> sys_indirect is a total red herring here, since it won't help one iota
>> making the userspace interface comprehensible - it just introduces a
>> different calling convention that the C library will have to thunk.
> 
> Nobody ever suggested that sys_indirect is in any way visible at the
> userlevel.  It's only meant to solve the problem of changing many
> syscalls (and hence touch lots of arch-specific code).  Again, as said
> several times, it could easily be used to fix the existing signalfd and
> eventfd syscalls without any arch-specific changes and no userlevel
> interface changes (the latter since we already have the correct interface).
> 
> Yes, you don't like sys_indirect, we know it.  But don't deliberately
> misrepresent the approach.
> 

I wasn't misrepresenting anything.  I was pointing out to the parent 
post -- not to you -- that sys_indirect does neither hide nor hair for 
what *he* was concerned about, which was the comprehensibility of the 
user-level interface.

	-hpa