This is arguable. The kernel is allowed to do whatever it likes; why
should it be accounted for? It's free to do all the actions which
sys_close does; why should it have to go through the syscall handler?
> 2. what if one were to temporarily redirect some system calls to another
> handler (like timetravel.o module does).
This is lying to userspace, not to the rest of the kernel.
> Matthew, if, as you say a specific Linux port disallows that, how are you
> going to handle kernel/kmod.c and all the other occurrences where
> _syscallX() is used from kernel space?
Submit a patch to turn them all into sys_foo() instead.
-- Matthew Wilcox <willy@bofh.ai> "Windows and MacOS are products, contrived by engineers in the service of specific companies. Unix, by contrast, is not so much a product as it is a painstakingly compiled oral history of the hacker subculture." - N Stephenson- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/