[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH] scsi.h uses "u8" which isn't defined.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 08:32:24AM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Monday 18 August 2003 15:04, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > But generally idea is good: keep interface separately from
> > > implementation.
> >
> > No, the idea is to physically separate the headers.
> >
> > include/{linux,asm} is currently copied to userspace, hacked a bit,
> > and then shipped as the "glibc-kernheaders" package.
> Or used directly by uclibc (and linux from scratch) to build the library
> against.

Yes, this is incorrect.

Kernel developers have been telling people for years, "do not directly
include kernel headers."

> > I would rather that the kernel developers directly maintained this
> > interface, by updating headers in include/abi, rather than ad-hoc by
> > distro people.
> >
> > Jeff
> Okay, I'd like to ask about the headers thing:
> I've got a project using uclibc, and build it myself, currently against the
> 2.4 headers. What's the plan for 2.6? Everything I've seen on the subject
> is "using kernel headers directly from userspace is evil, even to build your
> libc against, but we currently offer no alternative, so go bug your libc
> maintainer and have THEM do it..."

Well, do you expect kernel developers to fix up every libc out there?
That's what libc maintainers exist for. Distro guys did glibc,
(glibc-kernheaders) that covers the majority.

In any case, _this thread_ is an attempt to answer your question,
"what's the plan?" For 2.6, I don't need include/abi happening. Way
too late for that. For 2.7, IMO we need it...


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 13:47    [W:0.122 / U:1.776 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site