Re: kernel_types.h really needed ?
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:17:12PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 23 January 2012 13:26:44 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: I'm wondering if we do still need to have in uclibc a version of kernel_types.h, any idea ? the alternative is ... ? relying on linux/types.h ? if we don't care about things older than like linux-2.6.18, then we prob can drop kernel_types.h. but i suspect some people do care about older targets. For the record, I happen to care. Compiling for Linux 2.4.19. Regards, Rune ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Re: kernel_types.h really needed ?
On 24/01/2012 3.17, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 23 January 2012 13:26:44 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: I'm wondering if we do still need to have in uclibc a version of kernel_types.h, any idea ? the alternative is ... ? relying on linux/types.h ? linux/posix_types.h for example if we don't care about things older than like linux-2.6.18, then we prob can drop kernel_types.h. but i suspect some people do care about older targets. -mike ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Re: [PATCH] libc: remove pointless inclusion of kernel_types.
On 24/01/2012 7.56, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: On Jan 24, 2012 2:04 AM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote: On (23/01/12 19:59), Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: Indeed, the common, mips and xtensa version of pread_write.c do not refer any of types defined in kernel_types.h, so not needed to include this header. (Build untested on mips, xtensa) looks ok to me. There are further patches in future branch which unify pread_write.c It is better to start off the version that we will pickup shortly from the future branch so please defer this for now. as you prefer (it was just a simple tidy-up). Thanks cheers ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Re: kernel_types.h really needed ?
On Tuesday 24 January 2012 03:35:21 u-uclibc-q...@aetey.se wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:17:12PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 23 January 2012 13:26:44 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: I'm wondering if we do still need to have in uclibc a version of kernel_types.h, any idea ? the alternative is ... ? relying on linux/types.h ? if we don't care about things older than like linux-2.6.18, then we prob can drop kernel_types.h. but i suspect some people do care about older targets. For the record, I happen to care. Compiling for Linux 2.4.19. considering how quick you responded, i suspect you're not the only one. so we'll continue to live with bits/kernel_types.h. i don't think it's that big of a deal since you only implement it once per arch (by basically copying from the kernel where you need to set this up already) and then leave it alone. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
