-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Uli doesn't care that much about async syscalls, but I think that from a
> kernel standpoint, we'd want to use this same indirect call for async
> scheduling,
Note that I added a flags parameter to sys_indirect in the v3 patc
> BTW, I've botched the x86-on-x86_64 support. I have a patch but need to
> patch it before I'll submit v3 of the patch set. If you want to work on
> the patch and get syslet support going, let me know, I'll send the
> latest version.
I probably won't come around to trying sys_indirect with sys
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Uli doesn't care that much about async syscalls,
At the moment I just care a lot more about getting the API straightened
out. An asynchronous incomplete/unsafe API is still an
incomplete/unsafe API.
BTW, I've botched the x86-
Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> The following patches provide an alternative implementation of the
> sys_indirect system call which has been discussed a few times.
> This no system call allows us to extend existing system call
> interfaces with adding more system calls.
I might quarrel with some details,
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Zach Brown wrote:
>
> I think we can use this to pass per-syscall syslet data to the
> scheduler.
Yes, I mentioned this to Ulrich as one of the things that would make
sense.
Uli doesn't care that much about async syscalls, but I think that from a
kernel standpoint, we'd
The following patches provide an alternative implementation of the
sys_indirect system call which has been discussed a few times.
This no system call allows us to extend existing system call
interfaces with adding more system calls.
Davide's previous implementation is IMO far more complex than
war
6 matches
Mail list logo
