On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Son, 2011-03-20 at 13:08 +0530, mohit verma wrote: [...]
> I think it should be there in kernel not because it is my idea but for... and despite IMHO good reason for not including.
> good reasons (personally think so).
But talk is cheap so prepare and propose a working prototype as patch
and we will see the reaction from others.
thanks a lot Bernd. I am gonna do it.
I'm not strong against it but I do not see any significant advantage but
at least one open question and the burden to all which do not need/use
it[0].
ad "POSIX compliance": Well, there are lots of system calls (in the
Linux kernel) which are not in POSIX (or SuSv3 or ...) - plain simply
because they are newer than these "standards" or out of the scope of
them.
And (on Linux with and/or without GNU-libc) some system-calls (or
whatever POSIX calls them) are "only" libc functions which are
transformed into other, real existing system-calls.
Bernd
[0]: And that is partly due to my embedded background where you strive
to make everything small and avoid bloat;-)
--
--
........................
MOHIT VERMA
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
