Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
> >> The include_next trick can work as well but that'd mean synching the UAPI
> >> files regularly into compat. I'd much prefer to have code intact when
> >> possible when backporting so the option I stuck with then was to patch
> >> the code directly and then as part of compat-drivers to always copy
> >> that day's linux-next UAPI headers into the current directory for
> >> compilation. I see no other driver code using the uapi path explicitly
> >> though, is that by design?
> >
> > As far as I understand that's by design, yes. Kernel code isn't expected to
> > reference uapi/ headers directly.
>
> Did the design consider the case where no respective kernel API header
> file would ever exist?
I didn't particularly design it such that kernel .c files couldn't access uapi
.h files directly. I did, however, design it so that my scripts wouldn't have
to touch any .c files where possible, and certainly I didn't want to have to
double up all #includes that refer to KAPI/UAPI split headers.
Ideally, I'd've used #include_next in the KAPI file to refer to the UAPI file
where both exist, but some people have strong objections to that, so I ended
up having to do #include <uapi/...> instead.
I also didn't want to rename the asm/, linux/, etc. prefixes as that would
mandate changing pretty much every #include in the kernel.
For the case where no respective KAPI file exists, it was considered and it is
handled. This is done by adding extra -I flags, for example:
-I include
-I include/uapi
so looking for linux/foo.h, say, will look first for include/linux/foo.h and
then for include/uapi/linux/foo.h.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
