[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzUFMOAfxBpsGLYW3R5NA+f+LWCcKoGdizh_PAhQiXDvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:59:56 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:FUSE: FILESYSTEM..." <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: use kernel headers when __KERNEL__ is set
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
>
> And I still disagree. Why should userspace use the linux internal
> header when there's a perfectly good standard header that it can use?
If it's called UAPI, it damn well is *meant* for user-space inclusion.
Look at the file-name.
And since the bug comment says "This file defines the kernel interface
of FUSE" *AND* it very clearly has explicit code to support user-space
includes with special user-space-only type defines, then your email is
obviously just pure crap, and I don't understand how you can write
that sentence with a straight face.
The *whole* point of the UAPI includes is two-fold:
- to make it easier for user-space libraries to get at the kernel
definitions. Not everybody wants to use glibc for various reasons, and
where do you want people to *get* these declarations from?
- to make kernel people more AWARE of when they are changing stuff
that affects user-space.
Now, the uapi model not perfect, but there are damn good reasons to at
least *strive* for both of those things, so I really don't understand
your comment there.
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