On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 09:06:24 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:28:47 +1030 > > Christopher Yeoh <cyeoh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Resending just in case the previous mail was missed rather than ignored :-) > > > I'd appreciate any comments.... > > > > Fear, uncertainty, doubt and resistance! > > > > We have a bit of a track record of adding cool-looking syscalls and > > then regretting it a few years later. Few people use them, and maybe > > they weren't so cool after all, and we have to maintain them for ever. > > They are often cut off at the libc level and never get into apps. > > If we had tools/libc/ (mapped by the kernel automagically via the vDSO), where > people could add new syscall usage to actual, existing, real-life libc functions, > where the improvements could thus propagate into thousands of apps immediately, > without requiring any rebuild of apps or even any touching of the user-space > installation, we'd probably have _much_ more lively development in this area. > > Right now it's slow and painful, and few new syscalls can break through the brick > wall of implementation latency, app adoption disinterest due to backwards > compatibility limitations and the resulting inevitable lack of testing and lack of > tangible utility. Can't people use libc's syscall(2)? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>