Discussion of Linux API and ABI topics ()

Oleg Nesterov | 9 Mar 2010 23:17

Re: [patch 050/160] prctl: add PR_SET_PROCTITLE_AREA option for prctl()

On 03/08, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
> On 03/08/2010 08:44 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > I don't think this is big matter. Does using syscall have any benefit?
> > I don't have strong mention. merely, Timo's original proposal used
> > prctl.
>
> Syscalls don't have to go through the multiplexer in grab bag calls like
> prctl, ioctl, etc.  And they are more reliably to test for at runtime.
> An ENOSYS error is unmistakably clear.  An EINVAL error, as returned by
> prctl when encountering an unknown function argument, could also mean
> the argument isn't valid.  That's a common problem of most multiplexer
> syscalls and a reason why they should be avoided.

Agreed, but this applies to any prtcl() request. And we already have
PR_GET_NAME/PR_SET_NAME which is very close to PR_SET_PROCTITLE_AREA.

So, do you really think that this particular case deserves the new
syscall?

Oleg.

headers

Ulrich Drepper | 9 Mar 2010 23:33

Re: [patch 050/160] prctl: add PR_SET_PROCTITLE_AREA option for prctl()


On 03/09/2010 02:17 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> So, do you really think that this particular case deserves the new
> syscall?

Continuing a bad thing is never a good reason.  Break bad habits.

--

-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖

headers

KOSAKI Motohiro | 10 Mar 2010 02:42

Re: [patch 050/160] prctl: add PR_SET_PROCTITLE_AREA option for prctl()

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 03/09/2010 02:17 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > So, do you really think that this particular case deserves the new
> > syscall?
> 
> Continuing a bad thing is never a good reason.  Break bad habits.

OK. the opinion of caller folks (i.e. you) should be important
rather than the patch maker. I'll make respin.

thanks.