[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200608221207.00344.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:06:59 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@....de>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce kernel_execve function to replace __KERNEL_SYSCALLS__
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 10:00, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> I'm working on a patch loosely based on Arnd's that changes the
> in-kernel syscall macros to directly return the error codes.
I think that is still going in the wrong direction. Traditionally,
the macros in unistd.h were meant for user space, but we're now
discouraging that strongly (i.e. they are inside of #ifdef __KERNEL__).
The only in-kernel users on the _syscall macros used to by the
__KERNEL_SYSCALLS__ that we're trying to kill.
The logical consequence should be that we remove the _syscall macros
entirely, for all architectures.
UML can be converted to use the syscall function provided by libc
in order to call the host OS.
Arnd <><
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists