On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 12:40:48AM -0800, hpa@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > On January 9, 2017 12:32:23 AM PST, Roman Kagan <rkagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 09:19:57AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> On 28/12/2016 18:09, Roman Kagan wrote: > >> > Am I correct assuming that QEMU is currently the only user of > >> > arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/hyperv.h? > >> > > >> > Then I think we're fine withdrawing it from uapi as a whole and > >letting > >> > QEMU pull it in through its header-harvesting scripts (as does now > >> > anyway). This would lift all licensing and longterm API stability > >> > expectations. > >> > >> Actually, QEMU's header-harvesting scripts use uapi/ headers > >> exclusively, since they are built on "make headers_install". > >> > >> The extra cleanups that QEMU does on top are to allow compilation of > >the > >> headers on non-Linux machines. They don't really do much more than > >> changing Linux (linux/types.h) integer types to the C99 (stdint.h) > >> equivalents. > > > >Ouch, I stand corrected. > > > >So what should we do with it then? I'm sorta lost... > > > >We certainly can give it up and live with a private copy of the > >definitions in the QEMU tree but that doesn't sound optimal in any > >sense. > > > >Thanks, > >Roman. > > Why do that through header mangling rather than typedef? Sorry for not being clear, I actually asked what to do with the Hyper-V and VMBus protocol definitions. The typedef vs mangling is a different matter; I guess mangling was chosen to avoid conflicts with system-provided definitions on non-Linux systems, but I think Paolo can tell more. Roman. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
