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).