[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=dGPz4MpSKUNWaA_W1t4C_+zV=0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:13:24 -0400
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: {PATCH] fix __packed in exported kernel headers
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 15:01, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/30/2011 11:58 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 14:52, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 06/30/2011 11:48 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>> without fallback logic (#ifndef xxx...#define xxx...#endif), i think
>>>> that's throwing an unreasonable amount of requirements onto userspace
>>>> consumers
>>>
>>> Unclear. Too much "smarts" in kernel headers is a constant headache to
>>> userspace consumers.
>>
>> not even being able to include a header without hitting a build
>> failure without first declaring some magic defines (which,
>> realistically, the vast majority of people will be doing exactly the
>> same as they'll be using gcc) is unreasonable. hence my suggestion
>> about compiler.h.
>
> Not unless the kernel uses its own namespace for these defines. The
> thing is, most libraries have their own macro library for this, and
> collisions are both likely and bad.
while that's true for exporting compiler.h, namespacing is irrelevant
to my requirement -- the headers should have sane/usable defaults.
-mike
--
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