Re: [rfc] headers_check cleanups break the whole world
- From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:34:23 +0100
__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?
hpa already answered this question and he knows
the userland<->kernel stuff better than I do.
IMO the best thing would be that Arnd rebased his original patch
and we get that rewieved and in the end applied.
Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [rfc] headers_check cleanups break the whole world
- From: Kyle McMartin
- Re: [rfc] headers_check cleanups break the whole world
- From: Ingo Molnar
- [rfc] headers_check cleanups break the whole world
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Add per-cgroup CPU controller statistics
- Next by Date: RE: [tip:tracing/hw-branch-tracing] tracing/hw-branch-tracing: convert bts-tracer mutex to a spinlock
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Make exported headers use strict posix types
- Next by thread: [PATCH 00/15] bitops: Change bitmap index from int to unsigned long
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
