On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 09:04:22PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > > There's no more debate, the syscall is dead. > So what are we supposed to do until a replacement is devised? Common choices for userland/kernelland communication are ioctl, character devices, proc files, sysctl, and new filesystems. Greg is a strong proponent of new filesystems, and I think that it accurately represents the future direction of the Linux kernel. One nice feature of the syscall is that it was easily available in all per-process namespaces. Only sysctl shares this feature. (However, an administrator may decide to remove or deny access to the module's specific functionality through per-process namespaces, so sysctl isn't a perfect answer.) -- "In God we trust, all others we monitor." -- NSA, Intercept Operators's motto, 1970
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Dec 08 2002 - 20:30:54 PST