Re: [ [git pull] headers_check fixes]

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Tue Jan 27 2009 - 19:19:43 EST

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Do you think the "fix headers_check" patches spend lots of time analyzing
> > things? I bet no. They just try to make the warning go away, so you don't
> > actually end up with any more "coverage" anyway. Quite the reverse - instead
> > of having a simple rule ("CONFIG_xyz options simply do not exist in user
> > space"), you end up having ad-hoc hacks on a per-fix basis.
> >
> This is probably true. I think we should add this as one more of the
> preprocessing rules which we really should just do, as well as automatic
> mangling of integer types.

Btw, the really scary thing is that I bet there are programs out there
that "know" about kernel internals, and do things like

#define CONFIG_SMP 1
#define __KERNEL__ 1
#include <asm/atomic.h>

in order to get the atomic helpers from the kernel, and using CONFIG_xyz
markers to force the exact version they want.

And we will inevitably always end up breaking stuff like that. Nothing we
can do about it - in the end, users can do infinitely odd things and know
about our internals, and whatever changes we do will occasionally break
some of the more incestuous code.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at