Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 11:07:08AM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> 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.
Yes, that makes most sense.
Thanks,
tglx
