Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 05:07:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 05:06:56 -0500 Received: from 217-126-161-163.uc.nombres.ttd.es ([217.126.161.163]:8590 "EHLO DervishD.viadomus.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 05:06:44 -0500 To: ebiederm@xmission.com, raul@viadomus.com Subject: Re: Why 'linux/fs.h' cannot be included? I *can*... Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-Id: Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:20:02 +0100 From: DervishD Reply-To: DervishD X-Mailer: DervishD TWiSTiNG Mailer Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Eric :) >> This header can be included or not? It works for me, with headers >> from 2.4.17, so, is it just for backwards compatibility? >Policy. It is for forwards compatibility. The general policy on kernel >headers is that if it breaks you get to keep the pieces. That is: I can include it if I just want the definition of a few ioctl's, but if in a future version all that is changed or even dissapears is completely my problem. Given the number of user-space apps that needs ioctl definitions and things like those (that are supposed not to change easily), those definitions should go in user-includable headers... IMHO. Fortunately, we have some of them in libc headers now. Thanks, Ra?l - 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/