Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> > hmmm.  i think i agree.  please move the "userlevel" handling
> > part of sys_swapctl() into a support function.  don't like the
> > name above, perhaps call it swap_user()... (but be sure to post
> > changes and get OK from some other UVM-type as well.)
> 
> I proposed the name 'sys_swapctl1' to follow a quite widespread
> convention in the kernel. We already have sigpending1, exit1(),
> uvm_km_free_poolpage1(), fork1(), and so on.

Yep, convention is here already :)

I don't see particular problem with this split. It's generally not
TRT to split a native system call this way just to please compat
code (it adds one function call to the native system call path),
but this seems inevitable in this case and swapctl() is not
performance critical.

Go ahead :)

Jaromir
-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org> http://www.NetBSD.org/Ports/i386/ps2.html
-=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the tantric    -=-
-=- Buddhist masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you -=-
-=- sometimes levitate or glow.   Do not let this distract you.''     -=-