[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 21:35:21 +0100
From: Tomasz Sterna <tomek@...oka.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add sched_getcpu
W dniu 29.02.2016, pon o godzinie 16∶30 -0500, użytkownik Rich Felker
napisał:
> There are a lot of Linux specific syscalls without libc wrappers.
> > Is this one special enough?
> I wouldn't say there are a lot; do you have a list?
$ grep -roh 'syscall(SYS_[a-z]*' src/kits/kernel/ | sort -u
syscall(SYS_exit
syscall(SYS_futex
syscall(SYS_gettid
syscall(SYS_tgkill
And this is just from a fairly small library of mine.
> The topic of what should and should not be given libc wrappers has
> been under discussion on the glibc list for a while now. [...]
> You should not need to use syscall() to access any Linux
> functionality that's meant to be exposed to applications; [...]
Really depends on how you define "applications".
Basically why I asked the question - if the above should also be
wrapped, I am all for it. But if not, why some syscalls are special?
--
smoku @ http://abadcafe.pl/ @ http://xiaoka.com/
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
