On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 10:32:06AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
+> > +> This is actually a bad way to do things.
+> > +>
+> > +> There is a system call loadable module type, and you should
+> > +> use that instead of directly accessing the system call entry
+> > +> table and stomping on values without asserting appropriate
+> > +> locks.
+> > But I want to operate on existing syscalls.
+> Then specify a system call number instead of allowing the system to
+> pick an unassigned system call for you.
But I may catch even _all_ system call, so making separate functions
for every syscall isn't good idea (if I understand You well).