James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 18:16 +0000, Jeff Smith wrote: >> The following patch fixes the 'make headers_check' warning: >> include/scsi/scsi.h:288: userspace cannot call function or variable defined in the kernel >> It is similar to a patch from Jaswinder Singh Rajput back in July, which did not initially compile. [..snip..] >> A similar patch for the scsi_command_size code should be feasible, but a code search reveals some [..snip..] > Actually, there are several other problems like this that need > fixing ... and for which we have patches submitted. Thanks for the hint -- I've found some of them now! Sorry! (I am not on linux-scsi, so I have a bit of catching-up to do.) > The debating point > is whether we actually want to clean scsi.h and the allied headers up > enough so we can ask Ulrich actually to use them for glibc ... and where > the resulting headers should be placed. So far we have no consensus on > this. If there is no agreement on asking Ulrich or on ultimate filestore location, the question is whether meanwhile it's worth deploying the minimal cleaning necessary to avoid warnings and other known small difficulties (as mentioned in eg. Michael S. Tsirkin's patchset). I assume you think that the debate will resolve itself in due course, so a minor stall now is preferable? > Personally, I think a line by line comparison of the scsi.h in Ulrich's > glibc tree and ours making it identical and shoving all the non kernel > stuff into other headers might be the way to go .. but others have > disagreed in the past. Personally I agree with your approach, but I wouldn't want to do actual work on it if it's unlikely to get deployed. Jeff > 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
