Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:42:53 +0200 From: Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, MingyanGuo <guomingyan@gmail.com>, delphij@gmail.com, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why use `thread' as an argument of Syscalls? Message-ID: <448450FD.4030709@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060605163559.N50057@fledge.watson.org> References: <1fa17f810606050044k2847e4a2i150eb934ed84006f@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0606050744190.13542@sea.ntplx.net> <1fa17f810606050608l5bd2ec5ch37663375f6fa5b64@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0606051118180.14745@sea.ntplx.net> <20060605163559.N50057@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? -- Suleiman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?448450FD.4030709>