1 Dec 2004 01:10
Re: [RFC] Splitting kernel headers and deprecating __KERNEL__
Linus Torvalds <torvalds <at> osdl.org>
2004-12-01 00:10:45 GMT
2004-12-01 00:10:45 GMT
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, David Woodhouse wrote: > > Linus, you're arguing that it's better to let users use something which > is non-portable and silently does the wrong thing, as long as it > actually compiles. That this is preferable to making sure it doesn't > compile. I'm saying that if it worked before, it should work after. And my suggestion gives a nice warning. > But atomic.h isn't an example of that. Even atomic.h. I could well imagine that somebody includes atomic.h just to get the thread-safe updates for some architectures. For example, asm-alpha/atomic.h does it right, and I woul dnot be at all surprised if somebody had noticed. And your suggestion has the problem that the people who get bitten by a non-compiling thing are not necessarily the same people who can fix it. > software'? Of course not; you have to draw the line somewhere. And I > would draw it somewhere between atomic.h and byteorder.h -- where would > _you_ draw it? I'll draw it at "somebody might validly use it", because the fact is, I can't test it. Which is why I want patches to this to be OBVIOUSLY CORRECT, dammit! How hard is that to understand?(Continue reading)
RSS Feed