On Sep 12, 2005, at 11:47:56, Paul Jackson wrote:
hpa wrote:The only sane thing is to have a set of ABI headers with a clean,specific set of rules, which is included by the kernel private headers,as well as userspace.Why must the ABI headers be included by both kernel and user headers tobe sane?Hmmm ... I'm not sure I want to ask that, actually. I have this feelingfrom the tone of your assertion that you can explain to me why such a header organization is the only one that fits your mental model of how these things are structured, but that communication between us may break down when you try to convince me that your mental model for this is the only correct one.
If we acknowledge the fact that syncing the release dates of two projects
is basically futile, especially given that under your system the kernel headers would not change much/at-all to make the user-headers project easier, then any feature X that appears in a new release of the kernelwill not be accessible from userspace tools without ignoring the point of the user-headers project all together and having separate headers. Given
this, as well as the maintenance burden for those who would need to maintain the user-headers (which would be nearly nil if the current kernel headers could be cleaned up to the point which they could be used instead), this project is lots of messy work either way, but in the long run, if included into the upstream kernel, it will result in much less duplication of effort and much cleaner code. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -- Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming -- C.A.R. Hoare - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- [RFC] Splitting out kernel<=>userspace ABI headers
- From: Kyle Moffett <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Splitting out kernel<=>userspace ABI headers
- From: [email protected] (H. Peter Anvin)
- Re: [RFC] Splitting out kernel<=>userspace ABI headers
- From: Kyle Moffett <[email protected]>
- [RFC][MEGAPATCH] Change __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__ (defined by GCC from 2.95 to current CVS)
- From: Kyle Moffett <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][MEGAPATCH] Change __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__ (defined by GCC from 2.95 to current CVS)
- From: Kyle Moffett <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][MEGAPATCH] Change __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__ (defined by GCC from 2.95 to current CVS)
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][MEGAPATCH] Change __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__ (defined by GCC from 2.95 to current CVS)
- From: Kyle Moffett <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][MEGAPATCH] Change __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__ (defined by GCC from 2.95 to current CVS)
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][MEGAPATCH] Change __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__ (defined by GCC from 2.95 to current CVS)
- From: Kyle Moffett <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][MEGAPATCH] Change __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__ (defined by GCC from 2.95 to current CVS)
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][MEGAPATCH] Change __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__ (defined by GCC from 2.95 to current CVS)
- From: Kyle Moffett <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][MEGAPATCH] Change __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__ (defined by GCC from 2.95 to current CVS)
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][MEGAPATCH] Change __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__ (defined by GCC from 2.95 to current CVS)
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][MEGAPATCH] Change __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__ (defined by GCC from 2.95 to current CVS)
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- [RFC] Splitting out kernel<=>userspace ABI headers
- Prev by Date: [PATCH 2.6.13.1] Patch for invisible threads
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2.6.13 5/14] sas-class: sas_discover.c Discover process (end devices)
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][MEGAPATCH] Change __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__ (defined by GCC from 2.95 to current CVS)
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC][MEGAPATCH] Change __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__ (defined by GCC from 2.95 to current CVS)
- Index(es):