Re: sys_recvmmsg: wire up or not?
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Date: Tue Jan 19 2010 - 18:15:43 EST
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 16:21 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > IE. I'd rather have them all duplicated into real syscalls than some of
> > them only in socketcall and some on both since that will make any kind
> > of userspace transition even more hellish.
> Presumably you're going to have to support both given that binaries with
> both ABIs are going to be left around for the forseeable future. We
> started out with socketcall on sh64 with the initial ABI and then
> transitioned over to broken out direct system calls. While having both is
> a bit inconsistent, it's not really something that can be avoided until
> all of the old binaries go away. There are certainly enough architectures
> today that provide both that you shouldn't really run in to any nasty
> surprises at least.
I agree, my point was more like I'd rather not add the syscall for
recvmmsg only right now, and others later, and instead of an
all-or-nothing approach, ie, add all the syscalls at once (while keeping
the socketcall around of course). That would make glibc work easier not
having to track syscall availability on a per-syscall basis etc...
> 32-bit SH only uses socketcall at the moment, but I'm also inclined to
> add in the broken out versions and start migrating glibc over.
> Unfortunately there are not a lot of good options for the syscall checker
> with things like this however, given that some platforms will want one or
> the other or both ;-)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/