|
From: Tom H. <to...@co...> - 2005-03-30 18:06:51
|
In message <200...@ac...>
Julian Seward <js...@ac...> wrote:
> > >> I think we should just use the libc API for this, if not the system
> > >> glibc.
> > >
> > > Yes. The above suggestion effectively enshrines that, modulo
> > > perhaps sidestepping the errno uglyness for returning error codes.
> >
> > Well the other thing that I did for several routines was to use
> > a simpler interface that didn't rely on kernel structures, so for
> > example gettimeofday just returns a ULong and nanosleep takes a
> > ULong rather than faffing about with a structure.
>
> That I like -- it sounds like a good thing. In fact, we need to not
> have any kernel types, structs or consts in the kal interface.
The real point I was trying to make was that I wasn't sticking
religiously to the libc interface and creating a kal_timeval struct
but was doing whatever was easiest for the caller to use.
> > Likewise for getrlimit/setrlimit which were the other ones where I
> > made an attempt to remove VKI types from the interface.
>
> Yup.
>
> I presume you'll have an updated patch after a bit more iteration?
Yup. I'm working on it now. Did we ever reach a decision on whether
to drop routines from vg_mylibc that become simple veneers over a
single KAL routine?
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (to...@co...)
http://www.compton.nu/
|