Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The include_next trick can work as well but that'd mean synching the UAPI > >> files regularly into compat. I'd much prefer to have code intact when > >> possible when backporting so the option I stuck with then was to patch > >> the code directly and then as part of compat-drivers to always copy > >> that day's linux-next UAPI headers into the current directory for > >> compilation. I see no other driver code using the uapi path explicitly > >> though, is that by design? > > > > As far as I understand that's by design, yes. Kernel code isn't expected to > > reference uapi/ headers directly. > > Did the design consider the case where no respective kernel API header > file would ever exist? I didn't particularly design it such that kernel .c files couldn't access uapi .h files directly. I did, however, design it so that my scripts wouldn't have to touch any .c files where possible, and certainly I didn't want to have to double up all #includes that refer to KAPI/UAPI split headers. Ideally, I'd've used #include_next in the KAPI file to refer to the UAPI file where both exist, but some people have strong objections to that, so I ended up having to do #include <uapi/...> instead. I also didn't want to rename the asm/, linux/, etc. prefixes as that would mandate changing pretty much every #include in the kernel. For the case where no respective KAPI file exists, it was considered and it is handled. This is done by adding extra -I flags, for example: -I include -I include/uapi so looking for linux/foo.h, say, will look first for include/linux/foo.h and then for include/uapi/linux/foo.h. David _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
