Re: [RFC] Splitting kernel headers and deprecating __KERNEL__

[Grzegorz Kulewski <kangur@polcom.net>]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004, Tomas Carnecky wrote:

> Grzegorz Kulewski wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, David Howells wrote:
>> 
>>> (b) Make kernel file #include the user file.
>> 
>> 
>> Does kernel really need to include user headers? When it is definition
>> of some const then it should be defined in one file (to be sure it has
>> only one definition).
>
> You have do define a interface between the kernel and the userspace..
> you either include kernel headers from userspace (with a lot of __KERNEL__ in 
> them) or you make separate headers with the definitions and include them in 
> both kernel and userspace (better).
> BTW, these are not userspace headers like the ones in /usr/include, those are 
> just special headers preparated so that they can be included both from the 
> kernel and userspace.

Ok, so maybe do it in this way:
1. common headers (included by 2. and 3.)
2. kernel headers (things only for kernel + included 1.)
3. userspace headers (things only for userspace + included 1.)

This way we will have no ifdefs, one definition per thing, user code in 
userspace and kernel code in kernelspace only.


>> But user headers may have some compatibility hacks
>> that kernel do not need (and even maybe does not want) to have.
>
> About the compatibility hacks.. now it's time to remove them, together with 
> this change. I don't think this will happen before 2.7/2.8 and until then all 
> should have changed their code.
> If you announce these changes soon enough and the developers have enough time 
> to change their code, I don't see any problems.
> Maybe you also could wrap these definitions in some #ifdef's and mark them as 
> deprecated and write somewhere that they'll be removed in the next stable 
> tree (2.8). So you could check if a library compiles with the new headers or 
> if it still uses some old definitions.

Are you talking about breaking userspace (API and ABI) compatibility? And 
possibly breaking compatibility with older versions of standards? I do not 
think it could happen. (Well at least not for common widely-used APIs).

Instead we can place such userspace only hacks in 3.


Thanks,

Grzegorz Kulewski