Mark Rutland [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 11:07:08AM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:

quoted

On 3/6/20 4:04 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

quoted

quoted

To solve the problem, I decided to use the approach below:
 * Extract from include/linux/ the vDSO required kernel interface
   and place it in include/common/

I really like the approach, but I’m wondering if “common” is the
right name. This directory is headers that aren’t stable ABI like
uapi but are shared between the kernel and the vDSO. Regular user
code should *not* include these, right?

Would “vdso” or perhaps “private-abi” be clearer?

Thanks! These headers are definitely not "uapi" like and they are meant to
evolve in future like any other kernel header. We have just to make sure that
the evolution does not break what we are trying to achieve with this series.

Given we already include uapi/* headers in kernel code, I think placing
these in a vdso/* namespace would be fine. I think that more clearly
expresses the constraints on the headers than private-abi/* would.

Yes, that makes most sense.

Thanks,

        tglx

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel