Re: just how "sanitized" are the sanitized headers?

On 11/30/06, Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]> wrote:

  i noticed that, when i generate the sanitized headers with "make
headers_install", there are still a number of headers files that are
installed with variations on "#ifdef __KERNEL__".

  i always thought the fundamental property of sanitized headers was
to be compatible with glibc

You were wrong.

and have no traces of "KERNEL" content
left.

That's correct.

so what's the purpose of leaving some header files with that
preprocessor content?

When you see __KERNEL__ in sanitized headers, it's either due to
a) unifdef bug, or
b) header being listed in header-y when it should be listed in unifdef-y
-
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:
  • Re: just how "sanitized" are the sanitized headers?
    • From: "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • just how "sanitized" are the sanitized headers?
    • From: "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Broken commit: [NETFILTER]: ipt_REJECT: remove largely duplicate route_reverse function
• Next by Date: Re: CPUFREQ-CPUHOTPLUG: Possible circular locking dependency
• Previous by thread: just how "sanitized" are the sanitized headers?
• Next by thread: Re: just how "sanitized" are the sanitized headers?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]