Bug 192961 - Need __syscall_return macro for libhugetlbfs
Need __syscall_return macro for libhugetlbfs
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: glibc-kernheaders (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: David Woodhouse
Brian Brock
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-05-24 10:55 EDT by Steve Fox
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-05-24 15:39:41 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Steve Fox 2006-05-24 10:55:52 EDT
Description of problem:

I am trying to package libhugetlbfs for Extras, however it requires a
linux/unistd.h which has the __syscall_return macro included. This macro appears
to go back a long way (years), but isn't included in the version shipped by
Fedora. I can work around the issue by compiling with:
make CFLAGS=-I/usr/src/kernels/2.6.16-1.2122_FC5-i686/include/ but that's really
ugly and prone to cause trouble. Could this macro be added to the next

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

Comment 1 David Woodhouse 2006-05-24 11:10:11 EDT
I don't see __syscall_return() defined in asm-powerpc/unistd.h

Seriously, we're working on cleaning this stuff up upstream so that the kernel
headers are consistent across distributions. The current plan is to remove _all_
of the syscall macros in unistd.h from user visibility, because they're broken.

Doesn't glibc provide an appropriate alternative rather than having to abuse
kernel-private headers?
Comment 2 Josh Boyer 2006-05-24 11:32:00 EDT
It seems the macro is only needed on i386, which is why it doesn't care that the
macro doesn't exist in asm-powerpc/unistd.h
Comment 3 Steve Fox 2006-05-24 15:39:41 EDT
Given that removing all syscall macros is the goal, I'll close this bug. I've
talked with the libhugetlbfs guys and they plan to find another way to implement
what they need.

Thanks for your quick response.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.