[klibc] klibc: s390 errno...

[H. Peter Anvin]

Heiko Carstens wrote:
>>
>> The former is clearly right and the latter is clearly wrong.  Should I change the s390x version to match s390?
> 
> Looks like the right thing to do. Even though -125 seems to be wrong since we
> have already
> 
> #define ENOTRECOVERABLE 131     /* State not recoverable */
> 
> Testing against -4095 is probably better.

I like -4096 better; that way it's effectively an "error page" at the 
top of the unsigned space.

Could you try it out and send me a patch?  I don't have access to any 
s390 equipment or even simulators.

	-hpa