Re: [patch 050/160] prctl: add PR_SET_PROCTITLE_AREA option for prctl()

On 03/08, Ulrich Drepper wrote:

On 03/08/2010 08:44 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

quoted

I don't think this is big matter. Does using syscall have any benefit?
I don't have strong mention. merely, Timo's original proposal used
prctl.

Syscalls don't have to go through the multiplexer in grab bag calls like
prctl, ioctl, etc.  And they are more reliably to test for at runtime.
An ENOSYS error is unmistakably clear.  An EINVAL error, as returned by
prctl when encountering an unknown function argument, could also mean
the argument isn't valid.  That's a common problem of most multiplexer
syscalls and a reason why they should be avoided.

Agreed, but this applies to any prtcl() request. And we already have
PR_GET_NAME/PR_SET_NAME which is very close to PR_SET_PROCTITLE_AREA.

So, do you really think that this particular case deserves the new
syscall?

Oleg.