lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] uapi glibc compat: fix cases where glibc net/if.h is included before linux/if.h
    (Adding libc-alpha list, review of https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/7/89 )

    On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:46:20AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
    > From: Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@iki.fi>
    > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:03:21 +0200
    >
    > > @@ -68,6 +72,8 @@
    > > * @IFF_ECHO: echo sent packets. Volatile.
    > > */
    > > enum net_device_flags {
    > > +/* for compatibility with glibc net/if.h */
    > > +#if __UAPI_DEF_IF_NET_DEVICE_FLAGS
    > > IFF_UP = 1<<0, /* sysfs */
    > > IFF_BROADCAST = 1<<1, /* volatile */
    > > IFF_DEBUG = 1<<2, /* sysfs */
    > > @@ -84,11 +90,14 @@ enum net_device_flags {
    > > IFF_PORTSEL = 1<<13, /* sysfs */
    > > IFF_AUTOMEDIA = 1<<14, /* sysfs */
    > > IFF_DYNAMIC = 1<<15, /* sysfs */
    > > +#endif /* __UAPI_DEF_IF_NET_DEVICE_FLAGS */
    > > IFF_LOWER_UP = 1<<16, /* volatile */
    > > IFF_DORMANT = 1<<17, /* volatile */
    > > IFF_ECHO = 1<<18, /* volatile */
    > > };
    >
    > This is going to get messy is IFF_LOWER_UP, IFF_DORMANT, and IFF_ECHO
    > get added the the glibc header. Why not just handle it now with
    > another __UAPI_DEF_FOO guard so that the additions to net/if.h can
    > deal with this case too.

    Do you mean that the enum should be protected with a single guard or
    should I have one guard for current conflicts and one for the future
    if glibc headers include IFF_LOWER_UP and others?

    -Mikko

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2016-02-26 09:01    [W:7.340 / U:0.152 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site