On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Actually, what I've started working on these days is replace the proc > interface by a syscall to set the next_syscall_data field: I think this > might help us avoid defining a precise list of the new syscalls we need? Isn't that just sys_indirect(), but split into two syscall invocations rather than one? Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
