Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> Well, the intention is to clean up the situation somewhat.
> 
> __KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES is a really old construct that has been 
> with us forever. It's not widely used ... i dont know how widely 
> it's being relied on. Sam, should we get rid of it, or should 
> user-space define __KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES in cases the glibc 
> definition collides with the kernel's definition?
> 
> Note that if user-space is "playing utterly stupid games", it 
> can cause trouble no matter what scheme we pick - so we have to 
> filter out the reasonable problems that we should and can fix in 
> the kernel.
> 

__KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES is an anachronism that was put in to not break
libc5.  It has long outlived its usefulness, together with all the other
libc5 support crap in the kernel headers -- which do nothing but make
the kernel headers useless for any sane purposes.

Please let's just axe it.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.