lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git pull -tip] headers_check fixes for other architectures

* Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 13:08, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> > These are the remaining ones on x86:
> >> >
> >> > 17 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/linux/reiserfs_fs.h
> >> > 12 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/linux/soundcard.h
> >> > 6 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/asm/setup.h
> >> > 3 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/linux/nubus.h
> >> > 2 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/linux/in6.h
> >> > 1 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/mtd/jffs2-user.h
> >> > 1 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/linux/socket.h
> >> > 1 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/linux/coda_psdev.h
> >> > 1 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/asm/prctl.h
> >> >
> >> > They are all of the "extern's make no sense in userspace" type. What was
> >> > the verdict, are they worth touching, or should we turn off this warning
> >> > in 'make headers_check'?
> >>
> >> the warning wouldnt have been added if it didnt make sense ... like it
> >> says, prototypes for kernel functions make no sense in userspace headers
> >
> > the existence of a warning does not justify it. For example the CONFIG_*
> > warnings were deemed largely bogus and were removed.
>
> kernel function prototypes make no sense in userspace, especially
> considering how much effort goes into avoiding namespace pollution.

i agree, i only addressed this rather incorrect statement:

"the warning wouldnt have been added if it didnt make sense ..."

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-02 19:51    [W:0.129 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site