Paul Menage wrote: > 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? > Yes, from what I've read about the sys_indirect(), it is. Unfortunalty, I hadn't followed the thread, so except because of its "ugliness" (again ;-) ) I don't exactly know why the idea has been given up. Regards, Nadia _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
