Roland McGrath wrote:
Sorry to be blunt, Chris. But I think you're headed down a useless rat hole. I agree that the usage of /proc you've described is a bad interface. I am slightly mystified as to how that came to be what you settled on.
At the time Andrew Cagney and I decided to go that route, it was because frysk had no means of effecting kernel changes other than by use of a loadable module and the use of /proc entries was a common, easily accessible, means of communicating with modules.
I don't think it's worthwhile to hash over that. Let's move on.
I'd love to, but it would be nice to have a clue as to which direction. All I'm getting from The World is a list of stuff I shouldn't be doing, and that helps not at all with regard to what I /should/ be doing.
Please forget ptrace. Please forget about adding syscalls. At this point I think I just need you to give me the benefit of the doubt when I tell you I am sure this is not the way, and even dabbling sidetracks us from really useful progress. Let's move on.
Again, ptrace hacks and new syscall hacks are things I can actually do and in the absence of any other clue concerning what I should be doing it's what I've been doing.--I know it's a been a near-total waste of my time, but it kinda beats staring at a blank screen all day. I'll be glad to give you the benefit of the doubt--you've been kernel hacking longer than I have--but if you have cool notions about which way to go, you kinda need to let the rest of us know what they are. (And, reading ahead, yeah, I know, that's what the rest of this note is...)
I'll commence to hackin'.
cm
--
Chris Moller
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but
I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
-- Robert McCloskey
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
