From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jul 9 12:41:42 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id MAA09638 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 1995 12:41:42 -0700 Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA09628 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 1995 12:41:41 -0700 Received: (from julian@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA10453; Sun, 9 Jul 1995 12:37:40 -0700 From: Julian Elischer Message-Id: <199507091937.MAA10453@ref.tfs.com> Subject: Re: new getsid(2) system call for freebsd... To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 12:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ukkonen@aphrodite.funet.fi, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199507090620.IAA27669@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Jul 9, 95 08:20:50 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1204 Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > > As Jukka Ukkonen wrote: > > > > > > A couple of days ago I had a sudden moment of inspiration and > > I added an initial version of a new SVR4 style system call > > getsid(2) to FreeBSD. > > > The rationale for such a new system call is first and foremost > > completeness and symmetry. The second reason is the fact that > > X/Open might begin requiring such a service in their XPG, which > > might become a portability issue one day. The third point is > > that now and then there are things that would be somewhat easier > > to do, if such an interface were available, and moreover it is > > practically impossible to do exactly the same thing in a user > > mode subroutine. > > While i don't know about the second point (and hope that anybody else > here would comment on it), the third point is not acceptable (for me). > Writing code that relies on a specific system call that's only present > in a couple of systems is not a good idea. I notice however that systems that are moving towards posix are all implimenting this.. (osf and solaris to name two) I assume therefore (not having POSIX docs) that it might be 1/ common 2/ required terry? you have posix docs? julian