linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Linux-ia64] [PATCH][RFC][CFT] remove global errno from the kernel,

To: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] [PATCH][RFC][CFT] remove global errno from the kernel, make _syscallX kernel-only
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
Date: 31 Dec 2001 14:11:31 +0100
Cc: rth@dot.cygnus.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, dev-etrax@axis.com, linux-ia64@linuxia64.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com, grundler@cup.hp.com, cort@fsmlabs.com, linux-390@vm.marist.edu, gniibe@mri.co.jp, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, ultralinux@vger.kernel.org, jdike@karaya.com
In-reply-to: <20011230220500.A10224@gnu.org> (Lennert Buytenhek's message of "Sun, 30 Dec 2001 22:05:00 -0500")
References: <20011230220500.A10224@gnu.org>
Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
User-agent: Gnus/5.090003 (Oort Gnus v0.03) Emacs/21.1.30
Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@gnu.org> writes:

|> What I would like to know from each architecture team:
|> - What is your arch's policy on userspace usage of asm/unistd.h, and
|>   consequently, what is your opinion on the goal these patches
|>   aim for?

I very much appreciate the removal of the _syscallX macros.  FWIW, the
ia64 version of these macros never worked in userspace anyway.

|> - Are the changes I made in [1] and [2] for your $arch technically
|>   correct?

The m68k changes look ok.

|> Please CC me on replies as I'm not on any of the lists posted to.
|> 
|> My intention is to push these to Linus for 2.5 if everyone agrees.
|> They're probably too intrusive for 2.4 (although I'd love people
|> to convince me otherwise).

I wouldn't mind putting it into 2.4.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab                                  "And now for something
Andreas.Schwab@suse.de                          completely different."
SuSE Labs, SuSE GmbH, Schanzäckerstr. 10, D-90443 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>