From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751570AbWDAR1r (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Apr 2006 12:27:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751571AbWDAR1r (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Apr 2006 12:27:47 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:35850 "EHLO spitz.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751569AbWDAR1q (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Apr 2006 12:27:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:26:41 +0000 From: Pavel Machek To: Kyle Moffett Cc: Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nix@esperi.org.uk, rob@landley.net, mmazur@kernel.pl, llh-discuss@lists.pld-linux.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Create initial kernel ABI header infrastructure Message-ID: <20060329222640.GA2755@ucw.cz> References: <200603141619.36609.mmazur@kernel.pl> <200603231811.26546.mmazur@kernel.pl> <200603241623.49861.rob@landley.net> <878xqzpl8g.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> <20060326065205.d691539c.mrmacman_g4@mac.com> <20060326065416.93d5ce68.mrmacman_g4@mac.com> <1143376351.3064.9.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > I plan to add a lot of other definitions to this file > later on. For example different architectures have > different notions of what a __kernel_ino_t is (unsigned > int versus unsigned long). I may rename this file as > types.h, but from looking through the code I figure I'll > have enough general purpose declarations about "This > architecture has blah" that a separate stddef.h file > will be worth it. > > >(and... why do you prefix these with _KABI? that's a > >mistake imo. Don't bother with that. Really. Either > >these need exporting to userspace, but then either use > >__ as prefix or don't use a prefix. But KABI.. No.) > > According to the various standards all symbols beginning > with __ are reserved for "The Implementation", including > the compiler, the standard library, the kernel, etc. In > order to avoid clashing with any/all of those, I picked > the __KABI_ and __kabi_ prefixes for uniqueness. In > theory I could just use __, but there are problems with > that too. For example, note how the current compiler.h > files redefine __always_inline to mean something kinda > different. The GCC manual says we should be able to > write this: __KABI_ everywhere will just make your headers totally unreadable. Please don't do that. -- Thanks, Sharp!