Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 03:09:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 03:09:45 -0400 Received: from saturn.cs.uml.edu ([129.63.8.2]:3591 "EHLO saturn.cs.uml.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 03:09:44 -0400 From: "Albert D. Cahalan" Message-Id: <200206090709.g5979iK439624@saturn.cs.uml.edu> Subject: Re: [patch] fat/msdos/vfat crud removal To: hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp (OGAWA Hirofumi) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 03:09:44 -0400 (EDT) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chaffee@cs.berkeley.edu In-Reply-To: <87r8jhc685.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> from "OGAWA Hirofumi" at Jun 09, 2002 03:32:26 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org OGAWA Hirofumi writes: > "Albert D. Cahalan" writes: >> 1. app source code isn't supposed to use raw kernel headers >> 2. existing executables are not affected >> 3. the 2.5.xx series has already broken much more >> 4. it's crud for the kernel; it's crud for user code >> 5. the kernel shouldn't contain misc. user app code > > Why is there __KERNEL__ macro? Long ago, it was considered OK to use the kernel headers in app code. This is the case with Linux 2.0 and libc 5. (it used to be OK to symlink /usr/include/linux into an unmodified copy of the Linux kernel source) There has been a weak effort to avoid breaking libc 5. Using __KERNEL__ might make it easier to provide cleaned headers for user code. There has been talk of removing __KERNEL__ usage from some of the header files. - 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/