Re: [RFC][MEGAPATCH] Change __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__ (defined by GCC from 2.95 to current CVS)

[Kyle Moffett]

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 to
> be sane?
>
> Hmmm ... I'm not sure I want to ask that, actually.  I have this  
> feeling
> from 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 kernel
will 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/