Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Feb 2009 19:48:44 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |