Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 1 Apr 2006 16:22:13 -0800 | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Create initial kernel ABI header infrastructure |
| |
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:26:41 +0000 Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi! > > > I plan to add a lot of other definitions to this file > > later on. For example different architectures have > > different notions of what a __kernel_ino_t is (unsigned > > int versus unsigned long). I may rename this file as > > types.h, but from looking through the code I figure I'll > > have enough general purpose declarations about "This > > architecture has blah" that a separate stddef.h file > > will be worth it. > > > > >(and... why do you prefix these with _KABI? that's a > > >mistake imo. Don't bother with that. Really. Either > > >these need exporting to userspace, but then either use > > >__ as prefix or don't use a prefix. But KABI.. No.) > > > > According to the various standards all symbols beginning > > with __ are reserved for "The Implementation", including > > the compiler, the standard library, the kernel, etc. In > > order to avoid clashing with any/all of those, I picked > > the __KABI_ and __kabi_ prefixes for uniqueness. In > > theory I could just use __, but there are problems with > > that too. For example, note how the current compiler.h > > files redefine __always_inline to mean something kinda > > different. The GCC manual says we should be able to > > write this: > > __KABI_ everywhere will just make your headers totally unreadable. > Please don't do that.
Ack, I agree.
--- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |