Am Tue, 25 Sep 2012 22:37:13 +0200 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org>:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:20:55PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> IOW, this part of the patch: > >> > >> - c_flags = -Wp,-MD,$(depfile) $(USER_CFLAGS) -include user.h > >> $(CFLAGS_$(basetarget).o) > >> + c_flags = -Wp,-MD,$(depfile) $(USER_CFLAGS) -include > >> $(srctree)/include/linux/kern_levels.h -include user.h > >> $(CFLAGS_$(basetarget).o) > >> > >> just makes me go want to puke. The user.h file already has other > >> #include's in it, so I really don't see why you create this insane > >> special case. > >> > >> And why does UM have those "UM_KERN_XYZ" defines in the first > >> place? Why isn't it just using KERN_XYZ directly? Is it because > >> kern_levels.h didn't use to exist, so it was some kind of "let's > >> create our own that we can hide in our special headers". > > > > Because user.h is included *without* kernel headers in include path. > > Indeed. > > > It's for the stuff that is compiled with host libc headers. Keep in > > mind that UML talks to libc like normal architecture would talk to > > hardware. IOW, analogs of asm glue are in (host) userland C. And > > they need libc headers instead of the kernel ones. That's what that > > USER_OBJ thing is about. Kernel-side constants, etc. are delivered > > to that sucker using the same mechanism we normally use to give them > > to assembler - asm-offsets.c. And here, of course, slapping ifndef > > __ASSEMBLER__ around the tricky bits will not work - the header > > itself is just fine, but getting kernel headers in the search path > > really isn't. > > > > I agree that proposed solution is ugly. What we can do is > > copy the damn header into include/generated and #include > > <generated/kern_levels.h> from user.h. And kill UM_KERN_... > > stuff. Objections? > > My first submission had "We may convert all UM_KERN_* users to KERN_* > and drop the extra defines?" as a suggestion, but so far I haven't > found time to implement that... > > Still, no one came up with a better patch, and this is a regression. Yeah, I'd like to take the "ugly" patch to get rid of the regresion. Later we can get rid of UM_KERN_*, which is IMHO also very ugly. Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
