* Sam Ravnborg <s...@ravnborg.org> wrote:
> Obvious when there are two vastly different solutions there are some
> middle ground solutions too.
>
> And perf implements a tool based method to check that the manually
> copied/created/maintained headers are in sync with the kernel. which is just
> another way to maintain a set of copied headers.
>
> But this does not at all address the point which is that it is an unessesary
> burden to put on all the _users_ of the kernel uapi headers to amintain their
> own copy of the kernel headers (tool assisted or not).
In 99% of the cases it's trivial to keep them updated on the tooling side.
Basically a copy only has to be made if a change is done - and changes are not
that common in the ABI space.
> The rationale behind requesting the users of the kernel uapi headers seems to
> be
> that the kernel people would like to have the freedom to fix wrong doings in
> the
> past without violatign the uapi.
>
> So the benefit here is simpler headers on the kernel side compared
> to all users of kernel uapi heders to manually (tool assisted or not)
> maintaining their own copies of the uapi kernel headers.
I was reacting to this original claim of yours:
> > > The idea with uapi is the the kernel provides a sane set of headers to be
> > > used by user space.
> > >
> > > So we avoid random copies that is maintained by random people in random
> > > ways
> > > resulting in random bugs.
There's no 'random copies' - they are copies of past, valid versions of the
kernel
headers, and there's a mechanism to update them to the latest.
> Heck - if this is how it should be done then the the kernel
> should provide the copy of the headers that describe the
> uapi and the kernel should have the tool infrastructure to check
> that the headers are OK.
> Not all the users outside the kernelspace.
>
> So just to repeat - it is an error prone design to let users
> of the kernel uapi maintain their own copies of the kernel
> uapi header. It is the job of the kernel.
But "random copies" is not what perf does. Tell me, how is the perf mechanism
of
using the headers "error-prone"? It's a delayed COW mechanism - COW is not an
error-prone concept in any way ...
Thanks,
Ingo
