Re: Rumpification (was Re: CVS commit: src/usr.sbin/envstat)

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20101214145158.GG22653%cs.hut.fi@localhost>,
Antti Kantee  <pooka%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>On Tue Dec 14 2010 at 15:27:38 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:22:34AM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
>> > On Tue Dec 14 2010 at 14:22:50 +1100, Simon Burge wrote:
>> > > Was this change (including the scope of it) discussed anywhere before
>> > > you committed it?
>> > 
>> > Do you have an objection (apart from the one in the beginning of the
>> > mail where you indicated you don't like the new outlook of the code)?
>> > If not, consider it a fun experiment where you gain a ton of features
>> > for the cost of a bucket of paint.
>> 
>> It is quite clear that more than one person objects to random changes to
>> a lot of programs just for the sake of RUMP. Trying to be more
>> productive, why can't you take the route of either libc's namespace.h OR
>> explicit rump annotations using symbol renaming in the include files?
>
>As already mentioned in the thread, with that solution you cannot define
>the granularity per-call.

Rump can because it can look at the arguments.

christos