(Apologies for the massive cross-post, but this is a matter that concerns all architectures. For archs that don't have a maintainer listed in MAINTAINERS I grabbed a random email address from arch/$arch/kernel/*. If you're not the person to answer this for your $arch, please forward to an appropriate person/list.) Hi, As I mentioned in my email to l-k with subject '[PATCH][RFC] global errno considered harmful' earlier today, having a global errno in the kernel doesn't really make sense. Referenced patch [1] deletes all mention of a global errno from the kernel, fixes up a very small number of callers that were depending on it, and fixes up the syscall helpers in include/asm-$arch/unistd.h not to write an error code to errno in case of error anymore. This subtly breaks userspace code that uses these helpers, but the general consensus seems to be that userspace code shouldn't be touching these in the first place. Patch [2] fixes up asm-$arch/unistd.h to only define _syscallX in case __KERNEL_SYSCALLS__ is defined, to try and actively break userspace (ab)users of this code (thanks to Ralf Baechle for suggesting I should do something along these lines). 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? - Are the changes I made in [1] and [2] for your $arch technically correct? 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). cheers, Lennert [1] http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~buytenh/errno_ectomy-1.diff [2] http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~buytenh/errno_ectomy-1-to-2.diff
