> > > > It doesn't make much sense to play __RENAME() games with it since > > > > any old code will not compile against the new quotactl signature. > > > > > > that seems reasonable to me. > > > > What do you propose then ? quotactl is the best name I can find for this > > syscall ... > > quotactl2? quotapctl? quota_pctl? quotactl_the_next_generation? > ... quota_king? > > Considering that quotactl is not used by programmers (unless they're > hacking on the quota utils ;) I don't think we need to spend a lot > of energy on picking the name. If we want to follow a common naming > scheme for all syscalls which will take a plist (such as future mount?), > we might want to spend a few minutes on it, though. > > > (Just to explain the rationale for this nomenclatural crisis, yesterday > I discovered that the changed signature broke some assumptions about > syscall compat I'd made in makesyscalls.sh, and that caused the script > to fail in a very-scratchingly way. I could just change makesyscalls.sh, > but since I'd had made that assumption, it's possible others have too)
BTW, when i changed reboot(2) i added a char * to the signature. (this was in 1996?) how does this affect your compat assumptions? .mrg.