From: "Iain Sandoe" <iain@sandoe.co.uk>
To: Josh Huber <huber@mclx.com>, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
Subject: Re: Kernel build headers [was: Re: problems about __cli()]
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 21:58:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200007242101.WAA16532@hyperion.valhalla.net> (raw)
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000, Josh Huber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 09:11:08AM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> On 2.2.17pre10 (having done a make mrproper, menuconfig, dep):
[snip]
Thanks for the info. read & understood... guess I'll have to continue this
way until my distro settles into the new way (or I have time to change
distro)...
>> Also, as I am doing, if you have a user-land program that accesses a
>> kernel-maintained structure via a syscall - the layout of the kernel
>> structure is (properly) defined in a header in linux/include/asm - but you
>> also need to get at it when compiling the user-land program.
>
> In this case you should ship the corresponding header files that your
> user space program uses with that user-space utility. This makes sure
> that it gets things right and doesn't depend on having a kernel tree
> around that you know the location of. For example, for a program I'm
> working with, which uses an ioctl interface on a /dev entry (used to
> use system calls, but switched), I've set up a directory tree like:
> src all the code
> include
> linux header files copied from the kernel tree (just the ones I
> need)
> other header files
>
> This way, when autoconf places a -Ibuild_root/include with each
> compile, it uses the local header files.
>
> Before I did this, building was hell -- it's SO much better being able
> to build the user-space code on any box without having to untar kernel
> source.
>
> Again, just my opinion, but I've found that this works very well.
>
> I believe in general, unless the program you're writing needs to track
> the kernel very closely, it's bad practice to include kernel headers
> in user-space code.
Well, the user space prog. (posting due in about an hour ;-) is mainly for
kernel/driver developers so they would naturally need to track the two
together - I'm entirely in agreement that it is a bad idea to have general
user programs that require kernel sources :-)
Thanks,
Iain.
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
next reply other threads:[~2000-07-24 20:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-07-24 20:58 Iain Sandoe [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-07-24 8:11 Kernel build headers [was: Re: problems about __cli()] Iain Sandoe
2000-07-24 9:52 ` Michel Dänzer
2000-07-24 12:42 ` Josh Huber
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200007242101.WAA16532@hyperion.valhalla.net \
--to=iain@sandoe.co.uk \
--cc=huber@mclx.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.