From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joern Rennecke To: davem@redhat.com (David S. Miller) Cc: mark@codesourcery.com, ak@muc.de, toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl, law@cygnus.com, jbuck@Synopsys.COM, torvalds@transmeta.com, craig@jcb-sc.com, chip@perlsupport.com, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Linux and aliasing? Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <199906071301.OAA21645@phal.cygnus.co.uk> References: <199906051803.LAA15436@pizda.davem.net> X-SW-Source: 1999-06n/msg00250.html Message-ID: <19990630154300.iT1v4lzb4rpb78dQ6o9mJnZFmxOzOZ_9D-58q0XJ8V4@z> > Also some of the datastructures one would need to change are included > by userspace applications, especially for some of the networking > instances, and thus one would have ABI issues to concern themselves > about if they were to go and perform these transformations. Much more > is it than a tedious chore. One could certainly create another header > file, leave the old one alone with the same name, and use only the new > one inside the kernel, but does it make sense to have two copies and > maintain them? No. You could still have a single header file, and control the variant portions with #ifdef __KERNEL__ / #else / #endif . Or if you have some recurring common type mix, you could use some macros in the declarations that are definied differently for kernel and user space.