Re: Kernel header policy

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

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/