On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 17:03, Jamie Lokier <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
>> Because accept4() has been provided via the sys_socketcall() indirect
>> operation, for this socket system call and several others the native
>> direct syscalls were never added to the x86 32-bit table and probably
>> never will be.
>
> Hi David,
>
> Is there any reason why it was added via sys_socketcall() - isn't that
> just a waste of a few cycles and kernel size, compared with a direct
> pointer in the syscall table?
>
> I see sendmmsg() and recvmmsg() got proper syscall slots on x86
> 32-bit, and are in sys_socketcall() as well, which seems a bit pointless.
IIRC, PPC is trying to deprecate sys_socketcall(), and recently added separate
syscalls for all socket calls.
Whether other architectures should follow suit is indeed a good question...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
