Paul Menage wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@bull.net> wrote:
> 
>>Actually, what I've started working on these days is replace the proc
>>interface by a syscall to set the next_syscall_data field: I think this
>>might help us avoid defining a precise list of the new syscalls we need?
> 
> 
> Isn't that just sys_indirect(), but split into two syscall invocations
> rather than one?
> 

Yes, from what I've read about the sys_indirect(), it is.
Unfortunalty, I hadn't followed the thread, so except because of its 
"ugliness" (again ;-) ) I don't exactly know why the idea has been given up.

Regards,
Nadia
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers