Re: [PATCHv4 5/6] Allow setting O_NONBLOCK flag for new sockets

Ulrich Drepper
2007-11-20T16:05:54Z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Miller wrote:
> FWIW, I think this indirect syscall stuff is the most ugly interface
> I've ever seen proposed for the kernel.

Well, the alternative is to introduce a dozens of new interfaces. It
was Linus who suggested this alternative. Plus, it seems that for
syslets we need basically the same interface anyway.

> And I agree with all of the objections raised by both H. Pater Anvin
> and Eric Dumazet.

Eric had no arguments and HP's comments lack a viable alternative proposal.

> Where does this INDIRECT_PARAM() macro get defined? I do not
> see it being defined anywhere in these patches.

Defined in <linux/indirect.h>:

+#define INDIRECT_PARAM(set, name) current->indirect_params.set.name

Not my idea, I was following one review comment.

- --
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHQwWl2ijCOnn/RHQRAhEbAJ9/bkrb/phOMRl16Fb0N1TDYglSsgCeNhHQ
3huhdKCAVTu4CJnktf/ufy4=
=Jj6h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----