Re: [git pull -tip] headers_check fixes for other architectures

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 13:08, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> > These are the remaining ones on x86:
> >> >
> >> >     17 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/linux/reiserfs_fs.h
> >> >     12 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/linux/soundcard.h
> >> >      6 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/asm/setup.h
> >> >      3 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/linux/nubus.h
> >> >      2 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/linux/in6.h
> >> >      1 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/mtd/jffs2-user.h
> >> >      1 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/linux/socket.h
> >> >      1 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/linux/coda_psdev.h
> >> >      1 /dev/shm/tip/usr/include/asm/prctl.h
> >> >
> >> > They are all of the "extern's make no sense in userspace" type. What was
> >> > the verdict, are they worth touching, or should we turn off this warning
> >> > in 'make headers_check'?
> >>
> >> the warning wouldnt have been added if it didnt make sense ... like it
> >> says, prototypes for kernel functions make no sense in userspace headers
> >
> > the existence of a warning does not justify it. For example the CONFIG_*
> > warnings were deemed largely bogus and were removed.
> 
> kernel function prototypes make no sense in userspace, especially
> considering how much effort goes into avoiding namespace pollution.

i agree, i only addressed this rather incorrect statement:

  "the warning wouldnt have been added if it didnt make sense ..."

	Ingo