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? -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
