Besides, I'm not sure that patching the syscall table is all that beautiful a practice.
No, of course not. There should be a registration mechansim.
I expect I'd be a lot less bitter if the Linux folks hadn't decided to unexport the sys_call_table without providing us a mechanism to continue providing our syscall, _especially_ when they _did_ provide such a mechansim for the NFS server.
Some wild guesses, feel free to correct me: lkml people used NFS. Nobody had any experience with AFS or the like. And why include an ugly, multiplexing syscall that passes various pointers around, when "nobody" uses it?
They have plenty of other ugly things that pass pointers around.
Hell, the SCSI-generic interface consists of _writing_ a data structure that contains a pointer to user space. You can't get much uglier than that.
They were asked to provide a registration interface similar to that provided for NFS. They failed to do so.
-- Jeff _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
