pipe(2) calling convention: why?

[Ed Schouten]

Hello all,

It seems most people liked some things that were in the patch, while
others preferred to keep things as they were. I've just committed a
patch to SVN (r184849) which keeps pipe(2) as it is now, but does some
cleanups:

- I've added kern_pipe(), so we can make linux_pipe() and linux32_pipe()
  less ugly (discussed with rdivacky).

- I've also changed the manual page to not mention EFAULT, because we
  just get a segmentation fault if we pass an invalid address.

Thanks all for commenting on this topic!

-- 
 Ed Schouten <ed at 80386.nl>
 WWW: http://80386.nl/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20081111/30d0e1d8/attachment.pgp