Cc'ing lkml too. On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:54:21PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > Story time: > I was dreaming of a day were we can stop installing these headers, > thus making deprecation a bit easier process. > Yet after failing to convince Dave and Daniel on a number of occasions > I've accepted that those headers _are_ here to stay. And yes they > _are_ the UAPI, even though no applications are meant to use them but > the libdrm 'version'. > Thus any changes to the libdrm ones should be a mirror of the ones > here and libdrm should _not_ differ. Another day dream: Wouldn't it be nice if the uapi headers from Linux kernel would pass a simple quality check of compiling in userspace where they are meant to be used? Stand alone. Without magic tricks and additional libraries and their headers. Without glibc or any other libc implementation specific additions. The uapi headers define many parts of the Linux kernel API and ABI, and thus compiling them also without the 'official' GNU/Linux userspace libraries like glibc or libdrm does have some uses. For example API and ABI compatibility checks and API/ABI/system call fuzzers. Many headers required stdint.h types but Linux kernel headers do not define them in userspace, and then Linus has said that uapi headers should use the linux/types.h with double underscores. Thus my patches for fixing trivial compile errors turned into changing several stdint.h definitions to linux/types.h. Yes, there have been some regressions in this work but to err is human. What is the actual problem and how can we (yes, including me) try to solve it? -Mikko _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
