Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:48:46 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@FreeBSD.org>, delphij@gmail.com, MingyanGuo <guomingyan@gmail.com>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why use `thread' as an argument of Syscalls? Message-ID: <44258.1149522526@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:42:53 %2B0200." <448450FD.4030709@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <448450FD.4030709@FreeBSD.org>, Suleiman Souhlal writes: >Robert Watson wrote: >> >> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> >>>> They are the same questions, I think ;-). Now would you please >>>> explain "why use `proc' as an argument of Syscalls" to me :)? I've >>>> read some source code of the kernel, but no comments about it found. >>> >>> >>> I don't know. Convention? It makes sense to me. >> >> >> Certainly consistency. Most system calls do actually use the argument >> at some point -- be it to look up a file descriptor, access control, or >> the like, and the calling context has it for free and in-hand anyway. > >But couldn't they just use curthread/curproc? Yes, mostly. It's a good question how much, if anything, it helps. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44258.1149522526>