Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:19:07 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/sys _exit.2 accept.2 access.2 acct.2 adjtime.2 aio_cancel.2 aio_error.2 aio_read.2 aio_return.2 aio_suspend.2 aio_waitcomplete.2 aio_write.2 bind.2 brk.2 chdir Message-ID: <20021219201907.GA683@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20021219095247.GA79372@sunbay.com> References: <200212181654.gBIGswYP062315@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20021219132023.A28577-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20021219095247.GA79372@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Garrett Wollman wrote: > > > > > <<On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 01:22:37 -0800 (PST), Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> said: > > > > > > > Stop calling system calls "function calls". > > > > > > The purpose of my fixes was to unify the way we refer to syscalls. I agree with Ruslan. We should document our kernel interfaces. This includes system calls. I don't see any advantage to call system calls something else. It is perfectly logical that any of the standards bodies avoid using the term "system call" as that would restrict implementation freedom. But we're not describing a standard, we're describing an implementation. I think it would be a mistake to obfuscate the fact that certain calls are system calls. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021219201907.GA683>