"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:
> Followup to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305191039320.16596-100000@home.transmeta.com>
> By author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > A number of headers have historical baggage, mainly to support the
> > old libc5 habits, and because removing the ifdef's is something that
> > nobody has felt was worth the pain.
> >
> > I think the only header file that should be considered truly exported is
> > something like "asm/posix_types.h". For the others, we'll add __KERNEL__
> > protection on demand if the glibc guys can give good arguments that it
> > helps them do the "copy-and-cleanup" phase.
> >
>
> Copy and cleanup isn't realistic either, though, because it doesn't
> track ABI changes.
ABI changes or ABI additions?
If the ABI is not fixed that is a bug. Admittedly some interfaces
in the development kernel are still under development and so have not
stabilized on an ABI but that is a different issue.
> ABI headers is the only realistic solution. We
> can't realistically get real ABI headers for 2.5, so please don't just
> break things randomly until then.
As the ABI remains fixed I remain unconvinced. Multiple implementations
against the same ABI should be possible. The real question which is the
more scalable way to do the code.
What I find truly puzzling is that after years glibc still needs
kernel headers at all.
Eric
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 23 2003 - 22:00:37 EST