Re: [PATCH] introduce kernel_execve function to replace __KERNEL_SYSCALLS__

Arjan van de Ven
2006-08-20T20:41:12Z

On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 22:36 +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> On 2006.08.20 22:20:28 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 22:11 +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> > > On 2006.08.20 21:50:46 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > \
> > > > > Could we rename __syscall_return to IS_SYS_ERR (or whatever) and force
> > > > > kernel syscall users to do the check? That way we could eliminate errno
> > > >
> > > > s/users/user/ .. there's one left that should die out soon ;)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Only one in unistd.h, but throughout the kernel there are quite a few
> > > unless I'm missing something here:
> > > doener@atjola:~/src/kernel/linux-2.6$ grep \ _syscall * -R | \
> > > > grep -v define\\\|undef\\\|clobber | wc -l
> > > 116
> > >
> > > Are these just going to be replaced by calls to sys_whatever?
> >
> > they're not the users of this, they're the definitions... ;)
>
> Well, I assume that if some code defines a syscall, it will actually use
> it. Of course I meant to ask if the users of those definitions are going
> to just call sys_whatever.
> For example check_host_supports_tls in arch/um/os-Linux/sys-i386/tls.c
> which even uses the global errno (although in that case the whole
> else part could probably be just removed).

um uses glibc, and is thus special.. lets ignore that ;)
(really, it's an entire different beast in this regard)

--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com