Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:18:47 -0700 | From | Tom Rini <> | Subject | Re: Kernel header policy |
| |
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:08:53PM +0200, Eric Piel wrote: > 12.07.2005 20:38, Jim Nance wrote/a écrit: > > > > > >Perhaps a little history would help. In the beginning, the kernel was > >written with the intention that userland would be including the headers. > >And libc did include the kernel headers. > > > >This did provide an effective way to get new kernel features to show > >up in userland, but it created all sorts of other problems. Eventually > >it was decided/decreed that userland would NOT include kernel headers. > >Instead, libc would provide a set of headers which would either be > >compatable, or would marshel data into the form the kernel wanted. > > > > So does this mean that all the "#ifdef __KERNEL__" are useless or are > they still used?
Because a large number of things aren't "fixed", __KERNEL__ is still used so that nothing more breaks.
-- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ - 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/
| |