On 2023-06-07 19:28:58+0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
Willy, Thomas
This is the revision of the v2 syscall helpers [1], it is based on 20230606-nolibc-rv32+stkp7a of [2]. It doesn't conflict with the v4 of -ENOSYS patchset [3], so, it is ok to simply merge both of them.
This revision mainly applied Thomas' method, removed the __syscall() helper and replaced it with __sysret() instead, because __syscall() looks like _syscall() and syscall(), it may mixlead the developers.
Changes from v2 -> v3:
tools/nolibc: sys.h: add a syscall return helper
The __syscall() is removed.
Align the code style of __sysret() with the others, and use __inline__ instead of inline (like stdlib.h) to let it work with the default -std=c89 in tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile
tools/nolibc: unistd.h: apply __sysret() helper
As v2.
tools/nolibc: sys.h: apply __sysret() helper
replaced __syscall() with __sysret() and merged two separated patches of v2 to one.
Did run-user tests for rv32 (with [3]), rv64 and arm64.
BTW, two questions for Thomas,
- This commit 659a49abc9c2 ("tools/nolibc: validate C89 compatibility") enables -std=c89, why not gnu11 used by kernel ? ;-)
Because nolibc needs to support whatever its users need. As nolibc is header-only all of it needs to work everywhere. C89 should work for everybody :-)
The kernel on the other hand is compiled standalone and is not limited by its users.
See the discussion here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230328-nolibc-c99-v2-0-c989f2289222@weissschuh... https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230328-nolibc-c99-v1-1-a8302fb19f19@weissschuh...
Do we need to tune the order of the macros in unistd.h like this:
#define _syscall(N, ...) __sysret(my_syscall##N(__VA_ARGS__)) #define _syscall_n(N, ...) _syscall(N, __VA_ARGS__) #define __syscall_narg(_0, _1, _2, _3, _4, _5, _6, N, ...) N #define _sycall_narg(...) __syscall_narg(__VA_ARGS__, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0) #define syscall(...) _syscall_n(_sycall_narg(__VA_ARGS__), ##__VA_ARGS__)
Before, It works but seems not put in using order:
#define _syscall(N, ...) __sysret(my_syscall##N(__VA_ARGS__)) #define _sycall_narg(...) __syscall_narg(__VA_ARGS__, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0) #define __syscall_narg(_0, _1, _2, _3, _4, _5, _6, N, ...) N #define _syscall_n(N, ...) _syscall(N, __VA_ARGS__) #define syscall(...) _syscall_n(_sycall_narg(__VA_ARGS__), ##__VA_ARGS__)
Not sure it makes a big difference. If you want to change it, go for it.
Thanks.
Best regards, Zhangjin
Zhangjin Wu (3): tools/nolibc: sys.h: add a syscall return helper tools/nolibc: unistd.h: apply __sysret() helper tools/nolibc: sys.h: apply __sysret() helper
tools/include/nolibc/sys.h | 364 +++++----------------------------- tools/include/nolibc/unistd.h | 11 +- 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 320 deletions(-)
For the full series:
Reviewed-by: Thomas Weißschuh linux@weissschuh.net
Thanks, Thomas