On 2006.08.20 13:32:39 -0500, Chase Venters wrote:

On Sunday 20 August 2006 13:25, Andrew Morton wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:36:49 -0500

Chase Venters [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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.

Björn