3 ms·

I think the problem here is not a syscall taking 11 parameters, it's a syscall that merely lists what is inside a directory taking 11 parameters. ataylor_284 ex

I think the problem here is not a syscall taking 11 parameters, it's a syscall that merely lists what is inside a directory taking 11 parameters. ataylor_284 explained the reasons (how convincingly, I'd argue) but on the first sight that surely smells bloat. I'd also object NT kernel being more "powerful". Sure unixy kernels and NT has their differences but I don't think either one is superior.

rbanffy 10y ago
I remember the struct I had to populate to start a new process in 1997 or 1998...
bigger_cheese 10y ago
11 parameters may seem bloated but in some cases Unix syscalls weren't designed with enough parameters whcih caused a bunch of pain necessitating things like dup->dup2->dup3 pipe->piep2 rename->renameat->renameat2 Best practice nowadays in linux is to allow overloading syscalls via a flags parameter. see https://lwn.net/Articles/585415/ https://lwn.net/Articles/585415/ So modern linux syscalls may be bloated too.