On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 18:28 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 08:56:03AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 14:11 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > scsi/scsi.h is exported to userspace, so it should > > > use __u8 instead of u8 as other userspace-visible headers do. > > > > Actually, can we just put a hold on this until we decide what we're > > doing with exporting include/scsi. > > > > Arguments so far are > > > > 1. Don't export and let glibc supply the headers (as it does now) > > 2. Move headers to be exported to include/linux > > 3. Take over include/scsi export from glibc: this will necessitate > > comparing our current headers and those of glibc and moving > > stuff around. > > 2 + 3... > Let include/scsi be kernel internal stuff. > And have the exported headers in include/linux. I don't quite understand what you're saying here. I think 2 and 3 are either/or options. Either we move the exported files to include/linux or we export from include/scsi. I have to say I don't like option 2 because the breakage is visible to user level programs (unless we can persuade glibc people to #include <linux/scsi.h> in scsi/scsi.h). > This is how net/ handle their headers. > > I did a quick diff of the glibc provided scsi.h and kernel scsi.h. > >From a quick look it seems that we have more in the kernel version > than the glibc version - and no obvious conflicts. > > But agree with Boaz that we should do this in one go. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
