Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 18:20:27 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <bjk@freebsd.org>, kib@freebsd.org, Steven Stewart-Gallus <sstewartgallus00@mylangara.bc.ca> Subject: Re: Can anyone help clarify details about the FreeBSD system call interface? Message-ID: <54090FDB.6090801@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <2041449.H6lUHcsTDl@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <fb4bf68f53c5.53ff77ee@langara.bc.ca> <fc15f845287.53ffbbde@langara.bc.ca> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1409031725380.21571@multics.mit.edu> <2041449.H6lUHcsTDl@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/4/14, 7:06 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 05:30:01 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Steven Stewart-Gallus wrote:
>>>> svn blame says that the whole implementation dates from r1541.
>>>> Looks like
>>>> it was never implemented. Some googling indicates that it was a
>>>> plannedroutine to set the stack size, which was never implemented,
>>>> anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> The locking comments were added in r79224, but the implementation is
>>>> otherwise from r1541, i.e., it was never implemented.
>>> Alright, so sys/kern/syscalls.master can be patched somewhat like so
>>> and I won't need to document them?
>>>
>>> -72 AUE_O_VADVISE STD { int ovadvise(int anom); } vadvise \
>>> - ovadvise_args int
>>> +72 AUE_NULL OBSOL ovadvise
>>>
>>> -70 AUE_SSTK STD { int sstk(int incr); }
>>> +70 AUE_SSTK OBSOL sstk
>> I don't think so; I think that would be a regression.
>>
>> We do currently provide implementations for these syscalls, that just
>> happen to always return failure. I think that the OBSOL annotation
>> corresponds to a complete lack of implementation. Perhaps it would be
>> acceptable at a major release boundary, but this is not my area of
>> expertise.
> For these two calls, I doubt anything is actually using them. They've been
> stubs since the Mach VM was imported into BSD in 1990. We don't ship a system
> call for creat() anymore either. In this particular case, I think it would be
> more of a feature if those symbols disappeared from libc and caused link
> errors.
have we ever shipped code for creat?
if we lose teh ability to run FreeBSD 1.1 chroots I'll be most upset..
it's a great
selling point when pointing out our commitment to ABI stability and
backwards
portability.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54090FDB.6090801>