kernel_types.h really needed ?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 24 January 2012 03:35:21 u-uclibc-qs50 at 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 alternative is ... ?  relying on linux/types.h ?  if we don't care
> > about things older than like linux-2.6.18, then we prob can drop
> > kernel_types.h. but i suspect some people do care about older targets.
> 
> For the record, I happen to care. Compiling for Linux 2.4.19.

considering how quick you responded, i suspect you're not the only one.  so 
we'll continue to live with bits/kernel_types.h.  i don't think it's that big 
of a deal since you only implement it once per arch (by basically copying from 
the kernel where you need to set this up already) and then leave it alone.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/attachments/20120124/af92a0a1/attachment.asc>