From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261414AbVGLN2E (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:28:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261407AbVGLN2E (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:28:04 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:16809 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261414AbVGLN2C (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:28:02 -0400 Message-ID: <42D3C51D.3020703@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:26:53 -0400 From: Peter Staubach User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird (X11/20050322) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Horst von Brand CC: Marc Aurele La France , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Kernel header policy References: <200507120206.j6C26kGY017571@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> In-Reply-To: <200507120206.j6C26kGY017571@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Horst von Brand wrote: >>I am contacting you to express my concern over a growing trend in kernel >>development. I am specifically referring to changes being made to kernel >>headers that break compatibility at the userland level, where __KERNEL__ >>isn't #define'd. >> >> > >The policy with respect to kernel headers is /very/ simple: > > T H E Y A R E N E V E R U S E D F R O M U S E R L A N D. > >This general policy makes all your points (trivially) moot. > I must admit a little confusion here. Clearly, kernel header files are used at the user level. The kernel and user level applications must share definitions for a great many things. Perhaps more precisely, the rule is that kernel header files should not be #include'd directly from user level applications, but may be #include'd indirectly through other header files as appropriate? Thanx... ps