Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 09:52:24 -0600 From: Scott Long <scott_long@btc.adaptec.com> To: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au> Cc: "Brian T.Schellenberger" <bts@babbleon.org>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: who's been smoking crack in freebsd land now ? Message-ID: <20020411155224.GA12239@hollin.btc.adaptec.com> In-Reply-To: <200204111408.AAA16167@caligula.anu.edu.au> References: <20020411135352.CCE5FBA05@i8k.babbleon.org> <200204111408.AAA16167@caligula.anu.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 12:08:57AM +1000, Darren Reed wrote: > In some mail from Brian T.Schellenberger, sie said: > > > > > > Geez, calm down. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. > > > > Also, isn't the warning pretty self-explanatory? > > No, it isn't. > > > "man ioctl" shows that sys/ioctl.h is expected to be used in userland. > > Yes. > > Last I checked, <sys/*.h> is also expected to be used by the kernel. > > Nearly all of <sys/*.h> is expected to be included in userland programs > as well as the kernel. Or is FreeBSD going to have a completely different > /usr/include/sys for user programs and the kernel just in case there is > anybody out there that cares about portability that FreeBSD hasn't fucked > over yet ? sys/ioctl.h has had that warning since 1997/03/24. I'm not really sure why you are whining about something that changed FIVE YEARS AGO. > > > And, unlike userland, it's not like the kernel has any obligation to be the > > same across Unices, so I'm wondering on what you base the supposition that > > God decreed the One True And Correct Way for this to work? > > No, you just piss people off when they have to deal with rather arbitrary > fucking changes. It's not like the first time I've had to deal with crap > like this in FreeBSD so I may as well get used to it, I guess. See above. Btw, the profanity doesn't help you win this argument. > > In case you have trouble working that out: > it works everywhere else and used to work on FreeBSD, without any warnings > until someone changed it. Well, maybe except Linux, but then Linux distros > suffer badly from brain damaged include files because there's no coherancy > between the kernel includes and user includes. I'm sure that's not the > desired result for FreeBSD....or is it ? > See above. FIVE YEARS AGO. > You should be able to compile a LKM without any compile errors, shouldn't > you ? You know, an LKM that gets compiled without config'ing a kernel ? > Heck, you shouldn't even need kernel source installed to compile & use an > LKM. I mean isn't that the point of LKM's or has that been forgotten too ? Not necessarily. /sys/vm is needed if you want to use memory zones, just to give one example. I'm not sure what the problem is here. Scott To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020411155224.GA12239>