On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 11:07:08AM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On 3/6/20 4:04 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > [...] > > >> > >> To solve the problem, I decided to use the approach below: > >> * Extract from include/linux/ the vDSO required kernel interface > >> and place it in include/common/ > > > > I really like the approach, but I’m wondering if “common” is the > > right name. This directory is headers that aren’t stable ABI like > > uapi but are shared between the kernel and the vDSO. Regular user > > code should *not* include these, right? > > > > Would “vdso” or perhaps “private-abi” be clearer? > > Thanks! These headers are definitely not "uapi" like and they are meant to > evolve in future like any other kernel header. We have just to make sure that > the evolution does not break what we are trying to achieve with this series. Given we already include uapi/* headers in kernel code, I think placing these in a vdso/* namespace would be fine. I think that more clearly expresses the constraints on the headers than private-abi/* would. Thanks, Mark.
