Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 19:53:21 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au> To: Steven Wallace <swallace@ece.uci.edu> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au Subject: Re: SYSCALL IDEAS [Was: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sysv_msg.c sysv_sem.c sysv_shm.c] Message-ID: <199510230953.TAA22795@orion.devetir.qld.gov.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steven Wallace <swallace@ece.uci.edu> wrote: >> semsys() and shmsys() syscall interfaces are BAD because they >> multiplex several syscalls that have different types of args. >> There was no reason to duplicate this sysv braindamage but now >> we're stuck with it. NetBSD has reimplemented the syscalls properly >> as separate syscalls #220-231. >> >I agree. This is yucky! > >We need a better way to handle these syscall subcodes (as SYSV calls 'em). Is it not true that this System V stuff can be written as library routines that use BSD facilities such as mmap() and sockets? I would be happy to see the effort expended this way so that I can keep my kernel free of such cruft. Stephen McKay.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510230953.TAA22795>