From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carlos O'Donell Subject: Re: Official Linux system wrapper library? Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:58:15 -0500 Message-ID: References: <877ehjx447.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <875zx2vhpd.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <20181113193859.GJ3505@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> <5853c297-9d84-86e5-dede-aa2957562c6b@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5853c297-9d84-86e5-dede-aa2957562c6b@arm.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Szabolcs Nagy , Dave P Martin , Daniel Colascione Cc: nd , Florian Weimer , "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , linux-kernel , Joel Fernandes , Linux API , Willy Tarreau , Vlastimil Babka , "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 11/14/18 6:58 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > an actual proposal in the thread that i think is > worth considering is to make the linux syscall > design process involve libc devs so the c api is > designed together with the syscall abi. Right, I see at least 2 actionable items: * "The Checklist" which everyone making a syscall should follow and we create the checklist with input from both sides and it becomes the thing you reference e.g. "Did you follow the checklist? Where is X?" * Programmatic / Machine readable description of syscalls. This way the kernel gives users the ability to autogenerate all the wrappers *if they want to* in a consistent way that matches this syscall description format. -- Cheers, Carlos.