From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261650AbULFVOq (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2004 16:14:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261655AbULFVOq (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2004 16:14:46 -0500 Received: from 209-128-68-125.bayarea.net ([209.128.68.125]:37779 "EHLO hera.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261650AbULFVOo (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2004 16:14:44 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: hpa@zytor.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: [RFC] dynamic syscalls revisited Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:14:25 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Mostly alphabetical, except Q, which We do not fancy Message-ID: References: <1101741118.25841.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20041129151741.GA5514@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: terminus.zytor.com 1102367665 18305 127.0.0.1 (6 Dec 2004 21:14:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@terminus.zytor.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:14:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Followup to: By author: Jan Engelhardt In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > I do not see how dsyscalls could be better than static ones, so they are > one-on-one. Maybe someone could elaborate why they are "a really bad idea"? > Because we already have a name resolution mechanism in the kernel, called the filesystem? We also have a mechanism for ad hoc system calls, it's called ioctl(). And before you go "but ioctl() sucks": dynamic syscalls suck for *exactly* the same reasons. -hpa