> -----Original Message----- > From: Alexander Graf [mailto:ag...@suse.de] > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:00 AM > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > Cc: qemu-devel qemu-devel; Peter Maydell; Jan Kiszka; qemu-...@nongnu.org > List; > Marcelo Tosatti; David Howells > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Added uapi directory into linux-header > > > On 18.12.2012, at 02:27, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:ag...@suse.de] > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:51 AM > >> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >> Cc: qemu-devel qemu-devel; Peter Maydell; Jan Kiszka; > >> qemu-...@nongnu.org List; Marcelo Tosatti; David Howells > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Added uapi directory into linux-header > >> > >> > >> On 18.12.2012, at 02:14, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > >> > >>>>> +++ b/scripts/update-linux-headers.sh > >>>>> @@ -46,14 +46,26 @@ for arch in $ARCHLIST; do > >>>>> > >>>>> make -C "$linux" INSTALL_HDR_PATH="$tmpdir" SRCARCH=$arch > >>>>> headers_install > >>>>> > >>>>> + if [ -e "$linux/arch/$arch/include/uapi" ] && > >>>>> + ! [ -e "$output/linux-headers/uapi" ] ; then > >>>>> + mkdir "$output/linux-headers/uapi" > >>>> > >>>> mkdir -p > >>>> > >>>> But looking through this whole thing, it seems like the root cause > >>>> is actually different. We don't want any uapi directories exposed > >>>> to user space. So let's go back a step: > >>>> > >>>> Why do we need the uapi include dir? Because some header is using it. > >>>> > >>>> linux-headers/asm-powerpc/kvm_para.h: > >>> > >>> The kvm_para.h (also kvm.h) are now defined in include/uapi/asm/ > >>> > >>> Is not this the correct thing that any header file in > >>> include/uapi/asm/ (in > >> this case kvm_para.h) includes another header file (epapr_hcalls.h) > >> in same directory? > >>> > >>> Also I think now only the uapi/asm/*.h files should be exposed to > >>> userspace > >> (QEMU here). > >> > >> make headers_install should basically remove all the uapi magic and > >> give us normal backwards-compatible asm trees :). > > > > I am perfectly fine, How we can do this now :) > > Well, for starters, do the headers work if you apply the patch I sent in a > previous mail plus the epapr_hcall.h copy? If so, then that's the way to go :)
Are you really sure that applying a patch and then syncing (or other way round) is the way you want to go ? To me it does not look good, I think we can go with the script changes to make install_header is updated to do the work. -Bharat > > > Alex >
