[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4989D17F.4030406@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:33:51 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, mingo@...e.hu,
x86@...nel.org, sam@...nborg.org, jirislaby@...il.com,
gregkh@...e.de, davem@...emloft.net, xyzzy@...akeasy.org,
mchehab@...radead.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL -tip] fix 22 make headers_check - 200901
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> I fear that the problem might be more widespread than just kvm.
> The problem is that <linux/types.h> without __KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES
> defines the standard types that glibc provides in its own <sys/types.h>,
> some of them even defined differently (e.g. the size of off_t depends
> __USE_FILE_OFFSET64).
>
> Subject: introduce <linux/strict_types.h>
>
Actually, if anything we should move the *non* __KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES out
of <linux/types.h> into something else, or completely deep-six them. I
don't know of any libc which wants these anymore, and I think they're
just residual libc5 cruft.
However, if we want <linux/extra_types.h> that's fine with me; but
<linux/types.h> really should be clean, which means doing what
__KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES does now.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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