[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] linux-libc-headers
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
( - 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.102 / U:3.752 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site