On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:04:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > The kernel doesn't change ioctl numbers; they're actually competent at > maintaining their interfaces. OTOH, they don't consider their headers > such an interface, and they're happy to have them break randomly or not > work from userspace at all or anything. > > What we really should have is a nice low-level C library that encapsulates > such things and lets anyone use it...
Fine and dandy, but what do I do in the meantime? I can guard each of
the ioctl #defines with an #ifndef, but there's also a typedef thrown
into the mix. I can't exactly do this:
try {
typedef struct {
int context;
unsigned int offset;
unsigned int size;
unsigned int free;
} drm_sis_mem_t;
} except redefinitionException {
/* oh, that's all right, it's already defined */
}
It's because of this that I continue to feel that kernel interfaces are
best defined by the kernel.
If the kernel headers aren't an interface, why do they exist? There
appears to be a very large philosophical gulf here. The fact that the
Linux kernel guys may long for nice low-level C libraries that
encapsulate such things doesn't mean they exist. Is this a side-effect
of some sort of "real men don't program in userspace" dogma?
--
G. Branden Robinson | Measure with micrometer,
Debian GNU/Linux | mark with chalk,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | cut with axe,
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hope like hell.
pgpNYjTRYa7Kg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
