Re: A simpler variant on sys_indirect?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <linux@...>
Cc: <davidel@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 5:51 pm

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, linux@horizon.com wrote:

Both of these are basically horrible mistakes. 

The first one will almost certainly break things that get clever, like 
strace, and just make things really hard to debug.

The second one means that you are guaranteed to be basically twice as slow 
on any fast system call, since the system call overhead itself is usually 
quite a noticeable cost, often dominating everything else.


The batching has serious problems, not the least of which is that it's a 
fundamentally more complex interface, and introduces issues like "how do 
we pass values from one system call to the next". 

That's why I shot it down for syslets too. 

			Linus
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
A simpler variant on sys_indirect?, , (Sat Jun 30, 4:52 pm)
Re: A simpler variant on sys_indirect?, Linus Torvalds, (Sat Jun 30, 5:51 pm)
Re: A simpler variant on sys_indirect?, H. Peter Anvin, (Sat Jul 7, 12:09 am)