[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49A4EC8F.6090708@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:00:31 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...radead.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@...il.com>,
mingo@...hat.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] headers_check cleanups break the whole world
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Well, the intention is to clean up the situation somewhat.
>
> __KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES is a really old construct that has been
> with us forever. It's not widely used ... i dont know how widely
> it's being relied on. Sam, should we get rid of it, or should
> user-space define __KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES in cases the glibc
> definition collides with the kernel's definition?
>
> Note that if user-space is "playing utterly stupid games", it
> can cause trouble no matter what scheme we pick - so we have to
> filter out the reasonable problems that we should and can fix in
> the kernel.
>
__KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES is an anachronism that was put in to not break
libc5. It has long outlived its usefulness, together with all the other
libc5 support crap in the kernel headers -- which do nothing but make
the kernel headers useless for any sane purposes.
Please let's just axe it.
-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