On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:17:12PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 23 January 2012 13:26:44 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
I'm wondering if we do still need to have in uclibc a version of
kernel_types.h, any idea ?
the alternative is ... ? relying on linux/types.h ? if we don't care about
On 24/01/2012 3.17, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 23 January 2012 13:26:44 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
I'm wondering if we do still need to have in uclibc a version of
kernel_types.h, any idea ?
the alternative is ... ? relying on linux/types.h ?
linux/posix_types.h for example
if we don't
On 24/01/2012 7.56, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Jan 24, 2012 2:04 AM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On (23/01/12 19:59), Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Indeed, the common, mips and xtensa version of pread_write.c do not
refer any of types defined in kernel_types.h, so not needed
to
On Tuesday 24 January 2012 03:35:21 u-uclibc-q...@aetey.se wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:17:12PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 23 January 2012 13:26:44 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
I'm wondering if we do still need to have in uclibc a version of
kernel_types.h, any idea ?
the
