include conventions /usr/include/linux/sys ?

include conventions /usr/include/linux/sys ?

[LA Walsh]

Linus has mentioned a desire to move kernel internal interfaces into
a separate kernel include directory.  In creating some code, I'm wondering
what the name of this should/will be.  Does it follow that convention
would point toward a linux/sys directory?
-l

--
L A Walsh                        | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI
law@sgi.com                      | Voice/Vmail: (650) 933-5338

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: include conventions /usr/include/linux/sys ?

[Arjan van de Ven]

In article <NBBBJGOOMDFADJDGDCPHOEKLCJAA.law@sgi.com> you wrote:
> Linus has mentioned a desire to move kernel internal interfaces into
> a separate kernel include directory.  In creating some code, I'm wondering
> what the name of this should/will be.  Does it follow that convention
> would point toward a linux/sys directory?

I would vote for

include/linux		-	 exported interfaces
include/kernel		-	 kernel internal interfaces
include/asm		- 	 kernel internal/archspecific interfaces

Greetings,
   Arjan van de Ven
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: include conventions /usr/include/linux/sys ?

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <NBBBJGOOMDFADJDGDCPHOEKLCJAA.law@sgi.com>
By author:    "LA Walsh" <law@sgi.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Linus has mentioned a desire to move kernel internal interfaces into
> a separate kernel include directory.  In creating some code, I'm wondering
> what the name of this should/will be.  Does it follow that convention
> would point toward a linux/sys directory?
> 

I suggested include/kernel and include/arch with include/linux and
include/asm being reserved for the kernel interfaces (ioctl and their
structures mostly.)

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: include conventions /usr/include/linux/sys ?

[Andi Kleen]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 02:35:43PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to:  <NBBBJGOOMDFADJDGDCPHOEKLCJAA.law@sgi.com>
> By author:    "LA Walsh" <law@sgi.com>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > Linus has mentioned a desire to move kernel internal interfaces into
> > a separate kernel include directory.  In creating some code, I'm wondering
> > what the name of this should/will be.  Does it follow that convention
> > would point toward a linux/sys directory?
> > 
> 
> I suggested include/kernel and include/arch with include/linux and
> include/asm being reserved for the kernel interfaces (ioctl and their
> structures mostly.)

It would also be useful to put *32 structures for 32->64bit conversion
in there (to prepare for a generic 32->64bit conversion layer in 2.5) 


-Andi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: include conventions /usr/include/linux/sys ?

[Mitchell Blank Jr]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I suggested include/kernel and include/arch with include/linux and
> include/asm being reserved for the kernel interfaces (ioctl and their
> structures mostly.)

That sounds good.  One other refinement I would like to see is that
architecture specific but always present header files don't get used
directly in architecture-independant .c flies.  Some common examples of
this are <asm/io.h> and <asm/uaccess.h>  The problem is that often there
is some code that is identical between some or all of the archs.  Then
one of two things happen:
  * The code gets duplicated in many *.h files with all the bad things that
    comde duplication causes - especially since they're all under seperate
    maintainership
  * We have a big ugly conversion like what happened with 'asm/spinlock.h' ->
    'linux/spinlock.h'

If we only have arch-independant *.c files only include things out of
<kernel/*> (which may, of course, include things in <arch/*>) we can
avoid these conversions in the future and promote code reuse between the
architectures.

Also we should probably consider implementing a reasonalbe hierarchy to
the proposed <kernel/*.h> directory - for instance <kernel/bus/pci.h>.

-Mitch
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/