From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757357Ab0GAP46 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jul 2010 11:56:58 -0400 Received: from mail-pv0-f174.google.com ([74.125.83.174]:57055 "EHLO mail-pv0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757245Ab0GAP4z (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jul 2010 11:56:55 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=OnGteQfHZK1VBjBUvY9BirkrLkB2fi84YK2JkewGyhELfhq2mtn2gSncjr1b9yHwrz m0TnUmc5HU+XLV5vFBw1Kf3SszqVHCT8zMAzLOIO+tZJcD4JqCDwVknuYCUOdfh4LXu3 TTVf+AWDKyxPL6jGv7uMIs3vb/MJepONgcaZU= Message-ID: <4C2CBAE0.1030701@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:57:20 -0700 From: "Justin P. Mattock" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100615 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jkosina@suse.cz Subject: Re: [PATCH]kernel.h Move warning message about using kernel headers for userspace to types.h References: <1277935785-6023-1-git-send-email-justinmattock@gmail.com> <201007010958.46720.arnd@arndb.de> <4C2C9962.3080307@gmail.com> <201007011707.31783.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <201007011707.31783.arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/01/2010 08:07 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 01 July 2010, Justin P. Mattock wrote: >>>> >>>> +#ifndef __EXPORTED_HEADERS__ >>>> +#ifndef __KERNEL__ >>>> +#warning "Attempt to use kernel headers from user space, see http://kernelnewbies.org/KernelHeaders" >> >> so this is legit with the length of the statement? or should this be >> broken down into a small quick line directing to a file with the address >> or something > > Yes, the length of the statement was never the problem, it only went wrong > because the // in the url gets interpreted as the start of a one-line comment. > > Arnd > alright.. then I'll look at getting this resent today. Justin P. Mattock