On 2011-05-03 19:32, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 08:13:04PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 05/03/2011 08:09 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> >>>> Reluctant ack. >>> >>> What downsides do you see? >> >> The usual "it shouldn't be this way". Every other package (including, I >> think, glibc) uses the sanitized system headers. Except for kvm-kmod, >> the system headers are always available. > > I agree, it doesn't feel quite right to bring in the headers. I don't have > any alternative suggestions (besides better HOWTOs/Documentation) though. Again, the downside of the current approach are: - outdated distro headers silently disable features during build time (happened to me with vhost e.g.) - build breakages against older kernels / headers are pre-programmed as hardly anyone tests all the possible combinations - tons of #ifdef in the code + configure checks to catch the possible combinations Also note that [1] recommends this approach as well. I'm not aware of good examples, but I would be fairly surprised if we were the first to do this. Jan [1] http://kernelnewbies.org/KernelHeaders -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
