Re: [PATCH] introduce kernel_execve function to replace __KERNEL_SYSCALLS__
From: Björn Steinbrink
Date: Sun Aug 20 2006 - 15:43:28 EST
On 2006.08.20 13:32:39 -0500, Chase Venters wrote:
> On Sunday 20 August 2006 13:25, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:36:49 -0500
> > Chase Venters <chase.venters@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Unless 'errno' has some significant reason to live on in the kernel, I
> > > think it would be better to kill it and write kernel syscall macros that
> > > don't muck with it.
> > We have been working in that direction. It's certainly something we'd like
> > to kill off.
> Perhaps Arnd's patch is a good step in that direction then. A secondary
> suggestion is to put a big comment there that explains "Yes, we know this is
> ugly, it's going to die soon."
> I'd also consider going so far as just returning -1 if we failed, since we
> can't quite trust errno anyway.
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
and still provide the real error code to the code using the syscall.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/