Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:19:53 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@cup.hp.com> To: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <jruigrok@via-net-works.nl> Cc: Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, peter@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/sys Makefile.inc Message-ID: <3985C349.90C5D1E6@cup.hp.com> References: <200007311747.e6VHlxx25224@lor.watermarkgroup.com> <20000731195522.C70236@lucifer.bart.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > > -On [20000731 19:50], Luoqi Chen (luoqi@watermarkgroup.com) wrote: > >Why don't we prefix all syscalls with sys_? > > It would solve namespace clashes at least. > > I am curious about other reasons why or why not. I did a search for syscalls in the Linux kernel just this weekend. I had 2 search keys: 'asmlinkage' and 'sys_'. Unfortunately some syscalls are prefixed by 'osf_' (alpha port) or 'old_' (obsoleted syscalls?). All in all, my job was relatively easy due to the prefixing (and having 'asmlinkage'). I now have a clear separation of MD and MI syscalls and can work on splitting the Linuxulator in MD and MI parts... Just some input... -- Marcel Moolenaar mail: marcel@cup.hp.com / marcel@FreeBSD.org tel: (408) 447-4222 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?3985C349.90C5D1E6>