Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 01/18/2013 05:44 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 01/18/2013 04:22 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday 16 January 2013 22:15:38 David Miller wrote:
>>>>> From: Carlos O'Donell <car...@systemhalted.org>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:15:03 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>>> +/* If a glibc-based userspace has already included in.h, then we will
>>>>>> not + * define in6_addr (nor the defines), sockaddr_in6, or ipv6_mreq.
>>>>>> The + * ABI used by the kernel and by glibc match exactly. Neither the
>>>>>> kernel + * nor glibc should break this ABI without coordination.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +#ifndef _NETINET_IN_H
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should shoot for a non-glibc-centric solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't imagine that other libc's won't have the same exact problem
>>>>> with their netinet/in.h conflicting with the kernel's, redefining
>>>>> structures like in6_addr, that we'd want to provide a protection
>>>>> scheme for here as well.
>>>>
>>>> yes, the kernel's use of __GLIBC__ in exported headers has already caused
>>>> problems in the past. fortunately, it's been reduced down to just one case
>>>> now (stat.h). let's not balloon it back up.
>>>> -mike
>>>
>>> I also see coda.h has grown a __GLIBC__ usage.
>>>
>>> In the next revision of the patch I created a single libc-compat.h header
>>> which encompasses the logic for any libc that wants to coordinate with
>>> the kernel headers.
>>
>>
>>> It's simple enough to move all of the __GLIBC__ uses into libc-compat.h,
>>> then you control userspace libc coordination from one file.
>>
>> How about just deciding on a single macro/symbol both the
>> kernel and libc (any libc that needs this) define? Something
>> like both the kernel and userland doing:
>>
>> #ifndef __IPV6_BITS_DEFINED
>> #define __IPV6_BITS_DEFINED
>> ...
>> define in6_addr, sockaddr_in6, ipv6_mreq, whatnot
>> #endif
Hmm, how should we handle future structs/enums then?
For example, if I want to have in6_flowlabel_req{} defined in
glibc, what should we do?
We probably want to have __LIBC_HAS_STRUCT_IN6_FLOWLABEL_REQ
defined.
--yoshfuji
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
