Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Hello,

christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas) wrote:
> >I still think that we should not start spreading *at() syscalls, but rather
> >have one syscall to handle them.  While it is pointless to dholland, I
> >would say it is a better structure and would probably reduce some code
> >duplication.
> 
> But it would make trace display annoying. I don't want us to be like linux
> and socketcall(). Since the arguments are different you'd need a switch
> and the creative use of void *. Let's not go that way.

- Not sure if ktrace should dictate how to write kernel interfaces. :)

- Is there any reason why ktrace could not be improved?

-- 
Mindaugas