From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [patch] use __asm__ and __volatile__ in i386/arm/s390 byteorder.h From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <200706180124.25574.arnd@arndb.de> References: <200706171833.29046.vapier@gentoo.org> <1182120674.22999.4.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <200706180124.25574.arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:51:45 +0800 Message-Id: <1182156706.2799.62.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Mike Frysinger , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, rmk@arm.linux.org.uk List-ID: On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:24 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these > > > headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99. > > > > hmm but the kernel doesn't use -std=c99... > > The byteorder headers are exported to user space through > include/asm-generic/Kbuild.asm, and they are used by a number > of other exported headers, so they should work with any > gcc flags that a user might want to use. Even those headers which are exported are _still_ kernel headers¹. The 'caveat emptor' principle still applies to them, and we don't have to be _that_ anal about it. GNU extensions (and proper C types, for that matter) should be acceptable, surely? -- dwmw2 ¹ well, except perhaps for the very few headers which get included directly by glibc's headers, but aren't we still pretending that doesn't happen?