Subject: Re: types in syscallargs.h
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/11/2005 00:48:09
In article <A035A76E-118C-4D01-BE2A-2B1F986E2DD9@shagadelic.org>,
Jason Thorpe <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Jul 10, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Elad Efrat wrote:
>> I suggest treating syscallargs.h as a special case and making it
>> self-contained, in a way that including it alone won't require
>> of any other headers.
>I agree. I also don't think that the current pseudo-policy of
>"clarity by including everything explicitly" is all that great.
I agree that syscallargs.h should become self-contained, but I think
it should be done in a way that only the necessary structs and names
are exposed to it. As for the policy of including everything explicitly
goes, it is more important in userland (for portability you don't
want to depend on namespace leaks that a particular os has). It is
less useful in the kernel, until we have more 3rd party lkms...