Consensus around kernel syscall wrappers?

[Joseph Myers]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> (a) All Linux syscalls that are considered useful for the OS-independent
>     GNU API should be added immediately.

With documentation and testcases, and consensus is needed in each case on 
the header that has the declaration, the types involved, conventions for 
errno / cancellation, etc.

> (b) All Linux syscalls that are not considered useful for the OS-independent
>     GNU API should be added to an AS_NEEDED library named appropriately
>     e.g. libinux-syscalls.so.N, where this library is part of the implementation
>     and must be updated in lock-step with the implementation to ensure that
>     cancellation and other things are kept synchronized. It should not be a static
>     library to avoid security issues and to allow it to be updated.

With the same requirements as above on documentation, testcases etc., 
though there might be a bit more of a case here for the documentation just 
saying it calls a particular Linux syscall and giving the types / error 
handling / cancellation information.

(The absolute minimum for a testcase verifies that a call compiles and 
links.  Cf. <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2013-07/msg00386.html> 
regarding existing interfaces that aren't even tested to that minimal 
extent.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com