[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901271527340.3123@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:29:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [mingo@...e.hu: [git pull] headers_check fixes]
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> The intent of headers_check is to try to catch people who put things that
> depend on CONFIG_* stuff in exported headers (which, as we have seen, have
> been too sadly common.) If we declare that the export process will treat all
> CONFIG_* as undefined, we do lose some coverage but potentially end up with
> cleaner code. Not sure which is worse...
Do you think the "fix headers_check" patches spend lots of time analyzing
things? I bet no. They just try to make the warning go away, so you don't
actually end up with any more "coverage" anyway. Quite the reverse -
instead of having a simple rule ("CONFIG_xyz options simply do not exist
in user space"), you end up having ad-hoc hacks on a per-fix basis.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists