Re: include file conflict

Alexander Viro (viro@math.psu.edu)
Sun, 15 Nov 1998 08:39:03 -0500 (EST)


On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> >
> > What I mean by sanitized: break headers into two halves, one which
> > contains only definitions and -- with appropriate #ifdef's -- can be
> > included by userspace, and one which contains static inline code, which
> > includes the first half and which should never ever be even looked at by
> > userspace. Breaking up fs.h would be the first step towards sanity. It's a
> > big job, maybe it's a 2.3 job and 2.1/2.2 should be patched as much as
> > possible with #ifdef's, though that will be ugly. We shouldn't have gotten
> > here to begin with.
> >
>
> That I agree with 100%. For example, the autofs code contains
> linux/auto_fs.h and fs/autofs/autofs_i.h which are much that way.

Sounds fine. Moreover, things local to the <piece> would better _not_
go into the kernel namespace - it would take pretty little changes to
makefiles (call strip with right parameters) and splitting headers.
I'll try to cruft it up and will post it here if the result willn't be too
horrible.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/