Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Recent changes to sysctl.h breaks glibc | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | 19 May 2003 16:18:39 -0600 |
| |
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:
> Followup to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305191039320.16596-100000@home.transmeta.com> > By author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > A number of headers have historical baggage, mainly to support the > > old libc5 habits, and because removing the ifdef's is something that > > nobody has felt was worth the pain. > > > > I think the only header file that should be considered truly exported is > > something like "asm/posix_types.h". For the others, we'll add __KERNEL__ > > protection on demand if the glibc guys can give good arguments that it > > helps them do the "copy-and-cleanup" phase. > > > > Copy and cleanup isn't realistic either, though, because it doesn't > track ABI changes.
ABI changes or ABI additions?
If the ABI is not fixed that is a bug. Admittedly some interfaces in the development kernel are still under development and so have not stabilized on an ABI but that is a different issue.
> ABI headers is the only realistic solution. We > can't realistically get real ABI headers for 2.5, so please don't just > break things randomly until then.
As the ABI remains fixed I remain unconvinced. Multiple implementations against the same ABI should be possible. The real question which is the more scalable way to do the code.
What I find truly puzzling is that after years glibc still needs kernel headers at all.
Eric - 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/
| |