Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262187AbUK3Q5C (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:57:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262190AbUK3QzN (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:55:13 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:60080 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262187AbUK3Qxu (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:53:50 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:53:34 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: David Woodhouse cc: Alexandre Oliva , Paul Mackerras , Greg KH , Matthew Wilcox , David Howells , hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Splitting kernel headers and deprecating __KERNEL__ In-Reply-To: <1101832116.26071.236.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <19865.1101395592@redhat.com> <20041125165433.GA2849@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <1101406661.8191.9390.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <20041127032403.GB10536@kroah.com> <16810.24893.747522.656073@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <1101828924.26071.172.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <1101832116.26071.236.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1819 Lines: 41 On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > Same thing here. The __KERNEL__ approach says "whatever you want, boss". > > It doesn't get in the way. Maybe it doesn't actively _help_ you either, > > but you never have to fight any structure it imposes on you. > > Having to think before adding something that's user visible is a > _benefit_ not a disadvantage. I've said this at least three times: if you can point to a _specific_ thing you want to move, go wild. I think the big waste in this discussion has been that there have _not_ been specific suggestions, just total sound-bites like "wouldn't it be great to move things to 'include/kapi'". If you have a specific thing in mind, say instead something like "Wouldn't it be great if we moved all the tty layer IOCTL numbers into 'tty-ioctl-nr.h', and made the old header file just include that header file, so that new libc users can get them from just that header? And btw, here's the patch." then I might listen. Notice how the only really constructive thing to come out of this flame-fest has been a patch by Al that looked perfectly reasonable, but that got totally drowned out by the arguing? Note that even _if_ you have a specific thing in mind, I want to see that somebody would say "yes, we'd use that organization". I would not be surprised at all if glibc people said that they can't really use any re-organization anyway, since they need to support old kernel setups too. See? Changes that aren't specific enough, or don't actually help things is what I'm against. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/