On 17 November 2015 at 19:13, Gabriel Laskar <gabriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:08:12 +0000 > Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> With the above said: >> - I was thinking about hiding the UAPI ones, although Dave suggested >> against it. >> - Doing s|drm/drm.h|drm.h| will break compilation: >> + for the kernel - as we don't add the foo/drm/ to the include directive, >> + for any hacked up userspace - very unlikely that they have the >> include, considering that things work without it. > > We are not suggesting doing s|drm/drm.h|drm.h| but by replacing > > #include <drm/drm.h> > > by > > #include "drm.h" > > The header will be picked-up correclty in kernel, and in userland. > Missed out completely on the <> vs "" side. Imho using the latter the kernel will be ok, although for userspace that's not a good idea. What will happen if there is a drm.h next to the .c files (I know bad programmer) ? Imho it seems quite fragile although if people refer it so be it. I'm just going to chip-in "I told you so" as we get the above case :-) > > Is it possible to also resynchronize both headers, in order for them to > be the same in libdrm and the kernel ? > Of course, it's perfectly doable. First steps towards it are here (people like yourself and Mikko that want things fixed). We need just a couple more steps. Regards, Emil _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
