text: Actually, Ingo - there *is* one case where going through _syscallX() andtherefore int 0x80 from the kernel *is* the only way. This is when thecaller is a module. That is how I call sysfs() from BFS module. So, if nobody objects to allowing modules to make system calls (as weestablished the corruption this morning was just my bug - so behaviour isvalid), I will send this trivial patch to Linus (exporting errno):--- ksyms.c.0 Tue Oct 19 12:44:53 1999+++ ksyms.c Tue Oct 19 12:45:15 1999@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ #include <linux/poll.h> #include <linux/mm.h> #include <linux/capability.h>+#include <linux/unistd.h> #if defined(CONFIG_PROC_FS) #include <linux/proc_fs.h>@@ -79,6 +80,9 @@ #endif EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_option); EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_options);++/* errno */+EXPORT_SYMBOL(errno); /* process memory management */ EXPORT_SYMBOL(do_mmap);Regards,------Tigran A. Aivazian | Research Group | tel: +44-(0)1923-813796Santa Cruz Operation Ltd | Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Tigran Aivazian wrote:> On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote:> > why this vendetta against using sys_ functions directly? We dont go> > through a trap because in most cases that is unnecessery overhead. You are> > not being logical i think.> > Yes, I understand that overhead is unnecessary. Which is why I now say -> "why do we do _syscallX() from kernel at all? (other than when we *have*> to)"> > And example I give is exec_modprobe() doing close(i) when it could just do> sys_close(i).> > Regards,> Tigran.> > PS. Thank you for your patient explanations!> > > -To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.eduPlease read the FAQ at