On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 13:19, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> > Why ?
> > Adding "unknown" syscalls is I doubt EVER a good idea.
> > LiS has *known* and *official* syscalls, they can easily live with a
> > stub like nfsd uses.... few lines of code and it's safe.
>=20
> Well, nfsd does something like this:
>=20
> struct nfsd_linkage *nfsd_linkage =3D NULL;
>=20
> long
> asmlinkage sys_nfsservctl(int cmd, void *argp, void *resp)
> {
> int ret =3D -ENOSYS;
> =09
> lock_kernel();
>=20
> if (nfsd_linkage ||
> (request_module ("nfsd") =3D=3D 0 && nfsd_linkage))
> ret =3D nfsd_linkage->do_nfsservctl(cmd, argp, resp);
>=20
> unlock_kernel();
> return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(nfsd_linkage);
>=20
> I take it that this system call is not in nsfd's main data flow
> (probably write() and read are()). Taking the big kernel lock is
> excessive across every putpmsg() and getpmsg() operation and would
> seriously impact LiS performance on multiple processors. In effect,
> only one processor would run for LiS. A reader/write lock would be
> better.
The kernel has such locks too, no big deal
>=20
> Also, LiS does not require module loading on system call, but
> (questionably) needs unloading protection -- LiS does not really
> need to unload once loaded. This turns into something more like:
>=20
> static int (*do_putpmsg) (int, void *, void *, int, int) =3D NULL;
> static int (*do_getpmsg) (int, void *, void *, int, int) =3D NULL;
> static int (*do_spipe) (int *) =3D NULL;
> static int (*do_fattach) (int, const char *) =3D NULL;
> static int (*do_fdetach) (const char *) =3D NULL;
>=20
> static rwlock_t streams_call_lock =3D RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
>=20
> static long asmlinkage sys_putpmsg(int fd, void *ctlptr,
> void *dataptr, int band, int flags)
> {
> int ret =3D -ENOSYS;
> read_lock(&streams_call_lock);
> if (do_putpmsg)
> ret =3D do_putpmsg(fd, ctrptr, dataptr, band, flags);
> read_unlock(&streams_call_lock);
> return ret;
> }
not to bad...=20
>=20
> static long asmlinkage sys_spipe(int *fd)
> {
> int ret =3D -ENOSYS;
> read_lock(&streams_call_lock);
> if (do_spipe)
> ret =3D do_spipe(fd);
> read_unlock(&streams_call_lock);
> return ret;
> }
ehm sys_spipe doesn't exist, neither do all but 2 of the others you
showed.
>=20
> The module (LiS or iBCS) calls register_streams_calls after it loads and =
calls
> unregister_streams_calls before it unloads.
iBCS is dead. It's called linux-abi nowadays.....
=20
> But this is repetative and doesn't solve replacement of existing
> system calls for profilers and such.
Profilers don't actually NEED this.... OProfile is fixed for this for
example in the 2.5 branch.=20
Taking over "random" unimplemented system calls really sounds bad..... I
mean, for the next minor release of the kernel Linus can assign that
number to something official and different......
Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven
--=-ajfApP6n2W1JvqdSNEOU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQA9nXwPxULwo51rQBIRAjOsAKCYeFTya4OQZOGy4IFJMpl+HD1FEwCePHH7
qJYRxEMC1UBD7JAn4lk8PDQ=
=mTzl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-ajfApP6n2W1JvqdSNEOU--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/