![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Grzegorz Kulewski wrote: > On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, David Howells wrote: > >> (b) Make kernel file #include the user file. > > > Does kernel really need to include user headers? When it is definition > of some const then it should be defined in one file (to be sure it has > only one definition). You have do define a interface between the kernel and the userspace.. you either include kernel headers from userspace (with a lot of __KERNEL__ in them) or you make separate headers with the definitions and include them in both kernel and userspace (better). BTW, these are not userspace headers like the ones in /usr/include, those are just special headers preparated so that they can be included both from the kernel and userspace. > But user headers may have some compatibility hacks > that kernel do not need (and even maybe does not want) to have. About the compatibility hacks.. now it's time to remove them, together with this change. I don't think this will happen before 2.7/2.8 and until then all should have changed their code. If you announce these changes soon enough and the developers have enough time to change their code, I don't see any problems. Maybe you also could wrap these definitions in some #ifdef's and mark them as deprecated and write somewhere that they'll be removed in the next stable tree (2.8). So you could check if a library compiles with the new headers or if it still uses some old definitions. tom - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||