How much abstraction does musl have over the use of Linux syscalls, and how easily could it supply a partial libc for some other environment, such as an embedded bare-metal environment?
A relatively small number of syscalls are used as part of implementing other functions. Most if not all of these are made via macros that expand to inline syscalls; by replacing them with a call into your own function that implements the equivalent of the syscalls you need "on the metal" rather than calling into a kernel, most of the work is done.
Some syscalls are made directly from assembly source files because C is unable to represent the work that needs to be done around them (e.g. clone and vfork) or simply because their usage is arch-specific. These obviously use the trap-to-kernel instructions directly and cannot be re-routed as described above. Still the number of files is so small you could just rewrite the asm.
One future direction (albeit with lower priority than further functionality/quality improvements, unless somebody funds it) is making it easier to port to bare-metal and documenting the process.
A relatively small number of syscalls are used as part of implementing other functions. Most if not all of these are made via macros that expand to inline syscalls; by replacing them with a call into your own function that implements the equivalent of the syscalls you need "on the metal" rather than calling into a kernel, most of the work is done.
Some syscalls are made directly from assembly source files because C is unable to represent the work that needs to be done around them (e.g. clone and vfork) or simply because their usage is arch-specific. These obviously use the trap-to-kernel instructions directly and cannot be re-routed as described above. Still the number of files is so small you could just rewrite the asm.
One future direction (albeit with lower priority than further functionality/quality improvements, unless somebody funds it) is making it easier to port to bare-metal and documenting the process.