From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: why doesn't x86_32 have the accept4() syscall? Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:07:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20120110.120724.178373558788579377.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20120109.133640.1785167474272651414.davem@davemloft.net> <20120110160317.GC7180@jl-vm1.vm.bytemark.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:45313 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751222Ab2AJUHd (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:07:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20120110160317.GC7180@jl-vm1.vm.bytemark.co.uk> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: jamie@shareable.org Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org From: Jamie Lokier Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:03:17 +0000 > Is there any reason why it was added via sys_socketcall() - isn't that > just a waste of a few cycles and kernel size, compared with a direct > pointer in the syscall table? Looks like an oversight, but one for which I don't think is worth correcting.