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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).