Re: [PATCH] 2.6.0-test9 ioctl compile warnings in userspace

From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
To: "Jörn Engel" <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
Cc: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>,
	Johannes Stezenbach <js@convergence.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.0-test9 ioctl compile warnings in userspace
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:09:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031203140918.GA7971@iliana> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20031203133318.GD1947@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:33:18PM +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Wed, 3 December 2003 14:06:03 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 01:56:48PM +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > > 
> > > It doesn't clearly fix a bug, afaics.  Also, most kernel hackers don't
> > > care too much about the signed/unsigned warnings, as they are 99%
> > > noise.
> > 
> > Well, the main problem is that since the 2.6.0 kernel headers are used
> > by glibc on debian (and maybe others) it makes building userland
> > packages about this difficult. I was asking to know if there was
> > something inherently bad about implementing this in the userland kernel
> > headers provided by the glibc, as the glibc debian maintainers have not
> > been responsive about this, but i know since that a fixed package will
> > be provided once the situation resulting from the intrusion is cleared.
> 
> The current status for userland kernel headers is "the kernel doesn't
> care".  Let the glibc folks and whoever else gather the information
> from the kernel headers and create derived, but different, userland
> headers.

Ok, i understand.

> So unless you change this paradigm, your point is void, sorry.

Well, i just wanted to get some information about this patch. It has
been posted here already in september if i am not wrong, and there were
various comments, but nothing conclusive in a way or the other, so i was
wondering if it was a good way to solve this or not.

> > > Resend the patch after 2.6.0 has been released, I don't see any change
> > > for it to go in before.
> > 
> > But also no particular reason not to use it, right ?
> 
> Stability, stability, stability - are three reasons enough? ;)
> 
> Linus wants to have very few patches these days and all of them have
> to fix a real bug.  Please don't question him doing so, just remember
> the 2.4 days with slashdot stories like "kernel of pain".

I never dreamed about it. I was just curious about the vailidy of the
patch per se, not really its inclusion into the main trees or not.

Anyway, thanks for the information you provided, things are clearer for
me now.

Friendly,

Sven Luther