*1 routines in /sys/kern
We currently have routines like fork1() and killpg1() in /sys/kern/* to implement generic functionality for actions with more than one "front-end". NetBSD has done something similar for signals, so that emulators with non-BSD signal semantics can implement their way of doing things as an emulator-specific front-end without polluting the rest of the kernel. The SysVR4 emulator started using that stuff fairly heavily in NetBSD from November last year. I haven't merged those changes into the FreeBSD version because, well, the *1 routines aren't there yet. I wanted to get a bit of discussion going before ploughing ahead with making the change because I'm uneasy about kernel-wide changes simply to support an emulator (unstaticizing a function here and there is one thing, completely altering the implementation architecture of something that already works is something else entirely). If I split sigaction(), sigsuspend(), sigpending(), sigprocmask() and sigaltstack() into front-end and back-end pieces a-la NetBSD so that emulator-specific signal semantics can be imposed without totally duplicating those routines inside the emulator (like I did with sendit() and recvit() for socket I/O), will anyone complain? - mark I tried an internal modem,new...@atdot.dotat.org but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton - Voice: +61-4-1958-3414 - Fax: +61-8-83034403 - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
*1 routines in /sys/kern
< said: > If I split sigaction(), sigsuspend(), sigpending(), sigprocmask() and > sigaltstack() into front-end and back-end pieces a-la NetBSD so that > emulator-specific signal semantics can be imposed without totally > duplicating those routines inside the emulator (like I did with > sendit() and recvit() for socket I/O), will anyone complain? I'd say, ``go ahead''. But you should probably include a comment in the source file indicating the reason for the split, so that someone else maintaining the code can figure it out. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same woll...@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: *1 routines in /sys/kern
> > If I split sigaction(), sigsuspend(), sigpending(), sigprocmask() and > sigaltstack() into front-end and back-end pieces a-la NetBSD so that > emulator-specific signal semantics can be imposed without totally > duplicating those routines inside the emulator (like I did with > sendit() and recvit() for socket I/O), will anyone complain? I'd second Garrett on this; as long as it's documented somewhere that the *1 routines are the "backends", it sounds eminently sensible. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ m...@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msm...@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msm...@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
