From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7961B3858C41 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:25:00 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 7961B3858C41 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 7961B3858C41 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1707747902; cv=none; b=CuKe7eKAJZdBSIT5OtcEVZMYCSEQSILnx1M+x3j5ehohTWh9rYPtRbeRzijJ35XX6qG1l5otvowg+UvHoj2PkbHtwyWrzJ+8x5ZUsU05UfvUi+5oJBWl0dGc/qlldmeIiGFlNGn7w4Pvhzf9yJHJYa87oHJWWnjpRPqZomkyZQI= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1707747902; c=relaxed/simple; bh=23gKp7e35y+U7p23fVWZlFoYZlwJGxhfXyXxEq0NFhg=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=Snx2MgamW4CPHVQiG5DsfltuIDm4ywtL8l9Xn/ml5CEl4MLrULdTcxTwfVl3rlQtM9Bgea7Ipu7cefN9frcMuiL2Hi1Si9JIXpyvHwncgLNkwQxF99FUBG2/NOD53wjE/WlY9IUsS2U7vKYeUsPxrKzjn0UVxP4QdZUIvff/1J4= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1707747900; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=23gKp7e35y+U7p23fVWZlFoYZlwJGxhfXyXxEq0NFhg=; b=bKOVhhRu848meJkAnidi4W6E/qzUEesa+eSn6AhSpZxaSvNW2OEm1MdRlCNLiv2SouWsSd frBrHil2U4ne0OqS3tME0XOSPvKNND7K0p4T0DTXxQFACPkIrvFxU2yv1L6haDyRpcY3Nz 80FGk9ZWI7m1q6nMlZYiwaHlZq3ukKo= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-498-uYzISmr2NzSUhEGbJ0_EjQ-1; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 09:24:55 -0500 X-MC-Unique: uYzISmr2NzSUhEGbJ0_EjQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F55E3C0F37C; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:24:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg3.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.236]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B8E8492C27; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:24:53 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Askar Safin Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org, carlos@redhat.com, dalias@libc.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add public function syscall_no_errno References: <20240208152224.11031-2-safinaskar@zohomail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 15:24:52 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20240208152224.11031-2-safinaskar@zohomail.com> (Askar Safin's message of "Thu, 8 Feb 2024 18:02:42 +0300") Message-ID: <87wmr9ahfv.fsf@oldenburg3.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.10 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: * Askar Safin: > +@code{syscall_no_errno} is Linux-specific GNU extension. It does the same > +as @code{syscall}, but does not interpret return value, returned by Linux > +kernel, and doesn't set @code{errno}. This makes @code{syscall_no_errno} > +suitable for performing Linux syscalls, which never fail, such as > +@code{SYS_getuid}. Are there really any system calls which return a value in the range -4095 to -1, and it's still considered a success? Thanks, Florian