On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:38 AM, mohit verma <mohit89mlnc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Well, you can implement your idea as a library function too. >> Apart from the "just for fun" factor or to learn how to implement a new >> system call, I see no real gain to move that into kernel. > > I think it should be there in kernel not because it is my idea but for good > reasons (personally think so). >> Hi Mohit, A problem I see with your idea is that it is not POSIX-compliant. Linux being a Unix-like operating system tries to adhere to the standard as much as possible. Although is true that it is not tied to the specification. Whenever a change has strong arguments (an more important valid use cases) Linux can deviate from the standard. But as Bernd says, taking to the kernel something that can be done in users-pace with no real gain and also breaking POSIX signals semantics is something that will be hard to merge into the kernel. Also, to implement a syscall you have to convince not only the kernel developers that this change makes sense but also propose a patch to glibc to implement a function library that uses your new syscall. Best regards, ----------------------------------------- Javier MartÃnez Canillas (+34) 682 39 81 69 PhD Student in High Performance Computing Computer Architecture and Operating System Department (CAOS) Universitat AutÃnoma de Barcelona Barcelona, Spain _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
