From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:14:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:14:10 -0400 Received: from samba.sourceforge.net ([198.186.203.85]:23822 "HELO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:14:03 -0400 From: Paul Mackerras MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15132.52578.97084.238201@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 22:15:30 +1000 (EST) To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Subject: Re: Inconsistent "#ifdef __KERNEL__" on different architectures In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <15132.23395.553496.50934@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under Emacs 20.4.1 Reply-To: paulus@samba.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Adrian Bunk writes: > Whatever the right policy is, the main concern in my initial mail was the > _consistency_ of the kernel headers between different architectures. > So when you want to flush out these programs I see no reason to > inconsistetly change it only on one architecture. Different architectures are maintained by different people who have different perspectives on things. The only thing you have any right to expect any consistency in is the kernel API, and even there things like error numbers etc. differ between architectures. If you want consistency, you would either have to persuade Linus to issue an edict or else persuade every single architecture maintainer to do things the same way. But if the motivation is to make it easier for user-level programs to use things which are not intended to be exported to userspace, then all you will achieve is that we will make sure that you can't use those things from userspace. And this definitely includes things like atomics, bitops, memory barriers etc. Take a copy by all means but don't rely on the kernel definitions for your userspace programs. It is the policy for all architectures that kernel headers should not be used in userspace programs. The "inconsistency" that you are complaining about is only a difference in the extent to which this policy is enforced. Paul.