(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.rap...@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
