On 04/20/2017 10:36 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> > Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:14:37 +0100 > >> I agree, except I don't think you're going far enough. Those "standard >> names" you mention... some of this stuff actually depends on __GLIBC__, >> and *that* isn't right either. > > Yep, that's something that needs correcting. > Should all libc implementations define __GLIBC__ or could we at least switch the kernel UAPI to !__KERNEL__ here?
Hauke
