Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-12 Thread Tom Rini
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:08:53PM +0200, Eric Piel wrote: > 12.07.2005 20:38, Jim Nance wrote/a écrit: > > > > > >Perhaps a little history would help. In the beginning, the kernel was > >written with the intention that userland would be including the headers. > >And libc did include the kernel

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-12 Thread Eric Piel
12.07.2005 20:38, Jim Nance wrote/a écrit: Perhaps a little history would help. In the beginning, the kernel was written with the intention that userland would be including the headers. And libc did include the kernel headers. This did provide an effective way to get new kernel features to

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-12 Thread Jim Nance
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:26:53AM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: > I must admit a little confusion here. Clearly, kernel header files are > used at the user level. The kernel and user level applications must share > definitions for a great many things. Perhaps a little history would help. In

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-12 Thread Alistair John Strachan
On Tuesday 12 Jul 2005 14:36, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 09:26 -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: > > Horst von Brand wrote: > > >>I am contacting you to express my concern over a growing trend in > > >> kernel development. I am specifically referring to changes being made > > >>

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-12 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 09:26 -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: > Horst von Brand wrote: > > >>I am contacting you to express my concern over a growing trend in kernel > >>development. I am specifically referring to changes being made to kernel > >>headers that break compatibility at the userland

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-12 Thread Peter Staubach
Horst von Brand wrote: I am contacting you to express my concern over a growing trend in kernel development. I am specifically referring to changes being made to kernel headers that break compatibility at the userland level, where __KERNEL__ isn't #define'd. The policy with respect to

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-12 Thread Peter Staubach
Horst von Brand wrote: I am contacting you to express my concern over a growing trend in kernel development. I am specifically referring to changes being made to kernel headers that break compatibility at the userland level, where __KERNEL__ isn't #define'd. The policy with respect to

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-12 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 09:26 -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: Horst von Brand wrote: I am contacting you to express my concern over a growing trend in kernel development. I am specifically referring to changes being made to kernel headers that break compatibility at the userland level, where

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-12 Thread Alistair John Strachan
On Tuesday 12 Jul 2005 14:36, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 09:26 -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: Horst von Brand wrote: I am contacting you to express my concern over a growing trend in kernel development. I am specifically referring to changes being made to kernel

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-12 Thread Jim Nance
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:26:53AM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: I must admit a little confusion here. Clearly, kernel header files are used at the user level. The kernel and user level applications must share definitions for a great many things. Perhaps a little history would help. In the

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-12 Thread Eric Piel
12.07.2005 20:38, Jim Nance wrote/a écrit: Perhaps a little history would help. In the beginning, the kernel was written with the intention that userland would be including the headers. And libc did include the kernel headers. This did provide an effective way to get new kernel features to

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-12 Thread Tom Rini
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:08:53PM +0200, Eric Piel wrote: 12.07.2005 20:38, Jim Nance wrote/a écrit: Perhaps a little history would help. In the beginning, the kernel was written with the intention that userland would be including the headers. And libc did include the kernel headers.

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-11 Thread Horst von Brand
Marc Aurele La France <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It has been more than a week now... > -- Forwarded message -- > Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 11:12:03 -0600 (MDT) > From: Marc Aurele La France <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Linus Torvalds > Subject: Kernel

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-11 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:37:47PM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote: > I am contacting you to express my concern over a growing trend in kernel > development. I am specifically referring to changes being made to kernel > headers that break compatibility at the userland level, where __KERNEL__ >

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-11 Thread Tomasz Torcz
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:37:47PM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote: > I am contacting you to express my concern over a growing trend in kernel > development. I am specifically referring to changes being made to kernel > headers that break compatibility at the userland level, where __KERNEL__ >

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-11 Thread Stephen Frost
* Marc Aurele La France ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > To that end, I would propose, as a possible technical solution, extending > the kernel build process to detect these errors during kernel development. Well, couple stupid comments: #1: I'm not *entirely* sure Linus reads every mail to lkml..

Kernel header policy

2005-07-11 Thread Marc Aurele La France
:12:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Marc Aurele La France <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Kernel header policy Hi, Linus. It has been a while since we last talked. I hope all is well with you and your family. I am contacting you to express my concern over a growing trend in

Kernel header policy

2005-07-11 Thread Marc Aurele La France
:12:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Marc Aurele La France [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Kernel header policy Hi, Linus. It has been a while since we last talked. I hope all is well with you and your family. I am contacting you to express my concern over a growing trend in kernel development

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-11 Thread Stephen Frost
* Marc Aurele La France ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: To that end, I would propose, as a possible technical solution, extending the kernel build process to detect these errors during kernel development. Well, couple stupid comments: #1: I'm not *entirely* sure Linus reads every mail to lkml..

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-11 Thread Tomasz Torcz
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:37:47PM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote: I am contacting you to express my concern over a growing trend in kernel development. I am specifically referring to changes being made to kernel headers that break compatibility at the userland level, where __KERNEL__

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-11 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:37:47PM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote: I am contacting you to express my concern over a growing trend in kernel development. I am specifically referring to changes being made to kernel headers that break compatibility at the userland level, where __KERNEL__

Re: Kernel header policy

2005-07-11 Thread Horst von Brand
Marc Aurele La France [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It has been more than a week now... -- Forwarded message -- Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 11:12:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Marc Aurele La France [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Kernel header policy [] I am contacting you