| To: | "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: sys_syscall patch. |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com> |
| Date: | Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:04:03 +0200 |
| Cc: | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>, Carsten Langgaard <carstenl@mips.com>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| In-reply-to: | <00ee01c21b77$18522510$10eca8c0@grendel>; from kevink@mips.com on Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 02:02:49PM +0200 |
| References: | <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020624133501.22509K-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl> <00ee01c21b77$18522510$10eca8c0@grendel> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 02:02:49PM +0200, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > While I agree that rpc.lockd should directly invoke the desired > system call if possible, having an indirect system call mechanism > is something that has proved useful to me in the past on other > Unices, and I would rather see it fixed than discarded. The question is not wheather to drop this mechnism - we can't anyway for compatibility reasons - but if a kernel or userspace implementation is preferable for the future. Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: sys_syscall patch., Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | cross-compiler, Chien-Lung Wu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: sys_syscall patch., Kevin D. Kissell |
| Next by Thread: | Re: sys_syscall patch., Ralf Baechle |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |