Consensus around kernel syscall wrappers?

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 09/02/2015 05:01 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
>> On 08/24/2015 02:30 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>>> There is no consensus and I am behind on continuing the previous discussion.
>>
>> OK, so let me ask this: is there a reason these ought to be in glibc as
>> opposed to co-maintained with the Linux kernel?
> 
> Cancellation (libc-dependent).  errno (libc-dependent).  Userspace types 
> and error handling choices to fit in properly with other related 
> interfaces in libc.  Building objects for various ABIs that the kernel is 
> never built for or whose ABI distinctions are only relevant at userspace 
> level and not for the kernel.  All these things naturally fit in as part 
> of the glibc build.

Agreed. Cancellation was the first one that comes to mind, and then userspace
types. It's all a natural fit for glibc because we're already doing all of
this.

I have also stated clearly what I think the next step should be:
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-08/msg00576.html

Roland, What are we missing?

Cheers,
Carlos.