From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
tony.luck@intel.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: why doesn't x86_32 have the accept4() syscall?
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:00:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdXsDckAud4oaMwzNthVdOfZebCwCMeKf=jav7hF1DUTQw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120110160317.GC7180@jl-vm1.vm.bytemark.co.uk>
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 17:03, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
>> Because accept4() has been provided via the sys_socketcall() indirect
>> operation, for this socket system call and several others the native
>> direct syscalls were never added to the x86 32-bit table and probably
>> never will be.
>
> Hi David,
>
> 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?
>
> I see sendmmsg() and recvmmsg() got proper syscall slots on x86
> 32-bit, and are in sys_socketcall() as well, which seems a bit pointless.
IIRC, PPC is trying to deprecate sys_socketcall(), and recently added separate
syscalls for all socket calls.
Whether other architectures should follow suit is indeed a good question...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-10 17:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-09 21:26 why doesn't x86_32 have the accept4() syscall? Tony Luck
2012-01-09 21:36 ` David Miller
2012-01-10 16:03 ` Jamie Lokier
2012-01-10 17:00 ` Geert Uytterhoeven [this message]
2012-01-10 20:07 ` David Miller
2012-01-12 0:33 ` Michael Cree
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAMuHMdXsDckAud4oaMwzNthVdOfZebCwCMeKf=jav7hF1DUTQw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).