Re: Header files and the kernel ABI

Erik Andersen
2002-07-25T18:18:47Z

On Thu Jul 25, 2002 at 09:17:40AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Brad Hards wrote:
> >
> >I like it (having just argued for it), except for the __s* and __u*.
> >The ABI definitions aren't for kernel programmers. They are for
> >userspace programmers. So we should use standard types,
> >even if they are a bit ugly (and uint16_t isn't really much uglier
> >than __u16, and at least it doesn't carry connotations of
> >something that is meant to be internal, which is what the standard
> >double-underscore convention means).
> >
>
> Not quite -- it means they are implementation-specific (in this case,
> Linux-specific.) The Linux __s* and __u* predates <stdint.h>; I
> certainly would like to migrate to <stdint.h> but I don't see it as a
> very high priority.

Using stdint.h types at least in the kernel ABI headers would be
a _huge_ improvement! I hate having to cut-n-paste kernel structs
into my user-spave code and then rework the types so user-space
code can compile things.

-Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--