Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] tools headers: Go back to include asm-generic/unistd.h for arm64

[Leo Yan <leo.yan@arm.com>]

On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

[...]

> >> I'm still a bit lost about why Arm64 copying
> >> the generated header is considered a special case when we already have these
> >> x86 ones.
> >
> > If arm64 maintains its own unistd.h, there is a concern that other
> > architectures will do the same, and we will end up maintaining
> > fragmented headers for each architecture.
> >
> > Later, if we need to support architecture specific syscalls, we should
> > explore better approaches, such as using generated headers (e.g.,
> > make headers) to provide UAPI headers instead.
> 
> I think the more important issue with the current code is that
> we don't support the older architectures besides x86: arm32, powerpc,
> s390, mips, etc all have a custom syscall.tbl file like x86 but
> don't have any asm/unistd.h installed in tools. If we want to
> support any of them in the future, we should start generating the
> files the same way we do for the kernel. There is already a copy
> of the syscall.tbl files in tools/perf/arch/*/entry/syscalls/syscall*.tbl
> and the arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/Makefile
> just not the corresponding scripts/syscallhdr.sh.

Thanks for the supplement, Arnd!

Using the syscall*.tbl files under tools/perf to generate unistd.h
headers is not a good idea for me.  These files are maintained within
tools/perf (mainly for perf beauty printing), but the generated
unistd.h headers are required by code outside of perf (e.g., libperf,
feature checks, etc.).

In fact, selftests already use dynamic headers (see [1]).  Seems to
me that we should apply the same approach to perf build.

Thanks,
Leo

[1] https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/kselftest.html#running-the-selftests-hotplug-tests-are-run-in-limited-mode