lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] linux-libc-headers 2.6.3.0
    Date
    On Thursday 04 of March 2004 15:13, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
    > Is it the kernel which is based on glibc, or is it glibc (and the rest of
    > the userland as glibc isn't that special) using the kernel interface?
    >
    > The kernel doesn't need glibc at all, I don't know why do you want it
    > to require some external headers to compile.
    > Should the kernel behave differently when compiled with different glibc
    > header sets? :-)

    I never said kernel should require glibc - it shouldn't (mind you I don't do
    kernelland headers). But kernel does duplicate each and every structure
    provided by glibc. It has to. The Bad Thing (tm) is that all (well... allmost
    all - lots of linux headers don't parse correctly in userspace) of those
    structures get exported to userland. And programmers use them. They don't
    include <sys/resource.h>, but <linux/resource.h>. And that causes conflicts
    (and is bad practice).

    > IMHO all the defines should be in the kernel tree. Glibc can and should
    > use them, as it uses the ABI.

    Parts of abi that are standardized
    (http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/ - this thing; check the
    headers section), should be imho provided by C libs. These things do not
    change (they can't or everything would blow up) and I see no reason why glibc
    should rely on having additional headers available, just to do what it's
    supposed to.

    > The open question (of much less importance) is if we want to keep
    > the existing include/ layout or to move public parts to include/linux-abi
    > etc. It still has to reside in the kernel tree, though. I'd go with the
    > former for now as it requires less work. OTOH the latter might be
    > cleaner.

    Userland headers should be kept in /usr/include/{asm,linux}. I see no reason
    to change that (kernel headers have no business being in /usr/include btw).
    As to linux-common linux-kernelonly and linux-userland headers (linux-common
    used by both) - I just find it weird for userland to require kernel sources.
    Linux is supposed to have stable abi.

    > > And we have to remember 2.4 compatibilities (which linux-libc-headers
    > > have) -
    > > is 2.6 kernel a place for them?
    >
    > Examples?
    > If they are part of kernel API/ABI, then of course they are still used
    > by 2.6 kernel and they need to be there. If they aren't used by the
    > kernel (old #define names for instance) they should go to glibc headers
    > (#ifndef xxx #define xxx etc.).

    Additionall defines mostly. Probably some extra structures.


    --
    In the year eighty five ten
    God is gonna shake his mighty head
    He'll either say,
    "I'm pleased where man has been"
    Or tear it down, and start again
    -
    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 14:01    [W:0.025 / U:29.552 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site