Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:05:26 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: script(2) [was: [CFT/review] new sendfile(2)] Message-ID: <540509C6.3090909@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <40210.1409607245@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20140529102054.GX50679@FreeBSD.org> <20140729232404.GF43962@funkthat.com> <20140831165022.GE7693@FreeBSD.org> <540382E2.3040004@freebsd.org> <2770.1409522711@critter.freebsd.dk> <5403B13C.60008@freebsd.org> <4204.1409549879@critter.freebsd.dk> <5404D1B8.9010006@mu.org> <40210.1409607245@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/1/14 2:34 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > -------- > In message <5404D1B8.9010006@mu.org>, Alfred Perlstein writes: > >>> In message <5403B13C.60008@freebsd.org>, Alfred Perlstein writes: >>> >>>> Lua at the syscall level makes sense. :) >>> I doubt it. >>> >>> We're looking at high performance stuff and we don't want a silly >>> parser and string processing involved. >>> >> Would it really matter? Lua is bytecode, [...] > I though you wanted the interpreter in the kernel. > > If it's only the executor, then ... maybe... > > We'd need to do a serious audit of the lua bytecode first... > So you mean you'd inject the lua bytecode into kernel? Hmm, I'm not sure it matters, either way would be interesting. I think losing "eval" expressions might not be worth it. Just because you *can* write bad code, doesn't mean you should bar it because those facilities can be made to make very interesting things. -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?540509C6.3090909>