From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932463AbVHPVm4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:42:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932485AbVHPVm4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:42:56 -0400 Received: from mailout1.vmware.com ([65.113.40.130]:23574 "EHLO mailout1.vmware.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932463AbVHPVm4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:42:56 -0400 Message-ID: <43025DD7.3090007@vmware.com> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:42:47 -0700 From: Zachary Amsden User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kumar Gala Cc: linux-kernel list Subject: Re: asm/segment.h? References: <83B69EC3-8677-4199-BDDB-375AE708234C@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: <83B69EC3-8677-4199-BDDB-375AE708234C@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Aug 2005 21:42:27.0600 (UTC) FILETIME=[65813100:01C5A2AB] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Kumar Gala wrote: > Looking at some architectures it appears that asm/uaccess.h should be > used instead of asm/segment.h. Is this generally true that code in > segment.h should be moved into uaccess.h or is it still valid for an > architecture to have segment.h? At least in i386, segment.h can be included by userspace programs, and although it really is the user include maintainers that should sort that out, moving segment.h into uaccess.h makes that job more tedious. It looks like the proper thing to do for ppc is to deprecate segment.h entirely. Zach