Hi Masahiro Yamada,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]>wrote: > Hello Graeme > > > > Why would hacking /include/linux/stddef.h and /include/linux/types.h be > > preferable? > > The reason is this: > > > Personally, I prefer (2) to (1) because > > > - we don't need to tweak common/cmd_test.c any more > > > - we can reduce the conflict if we have a plan to update > > > Linux-originated header files. > > > Some Linux header files are very old. > Accoding to git log, for example, include/linux/types.h > was added at 2000 and include/linux/stddef.h at 2002. > I figured that might be the case after I hit send :) > > We imported Linux headers and > generally add an item to them > every time we find some necessary feature is missing. > For example, this patch: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/291435/ > Adjusting little by little is one strategy. > But we might think of synchronizing Linux-related headers > with new ones in future. > Would be interesting to see what kinds of chaos would ensue if we did... > We have lots of files imported from Linux Kernel. > So, basiclly, there is more or less advantage to mimic Linux's way. > Agreed - we use the Linux coding standards and probably >90% of our build probably happen on Linux machines. > Anyway, this is my personal option. > Opinions about this item may differ among people. > I also think it would be better to have all headers under /include/linux/ synchronised with Linux. But I've been out of the game so long now, I don't know if I've inadvertently started a flame war... Regards, Graeme P.S. Apologies for my previous top-post - please don't hurt me
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
