On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 7:17 AM, <mikko.rap...@bmw.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm chipping in since I've been messing with these things a bit in upstream > Linux kernel. > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 06:37:52AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:46 AM, André Draszik <g...@andred.net> wrote: >> > connman is not doing anything wrong here. >> > >> >> yes I am aware of this >> >> > The kernel is redefining IFF_LOWER_UP, because it thinks the libc doesn't >> > define it yet (and glibc doesn't). >> > >> > libc-compat.h is the way to solve these kind of issues. There also is >> > https: >> > //lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/12/238 which is very similar. I'll pick that >> > instead. >> > >> see the comment https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/16/121 >> that worries me for this patch > > I'm aware of those review comments but I have not seen any patches posted > which > fix the problem in some other way. Thus I would propose to apply these patches > as a workaround until upstream fixes the issues. > > These header files do not change that often either.
problem is you become incompatible ABI forever that worries me. However if bruce is fine to carry this patch as part of linux-yocto I might relent. It still will be hassle where folks will have to apply this patch to there kernels if they are building musl based systems. > >> I am not questioning the correctness of patch too. But >> it would be better to get this patch accepted into kernel >> before applying to OE since these are kind of patches which >> you can get stuck with for life if upstream is not accepting it. > > Upstream-Status: Denied > > would be a correct marker for now I guess. I would rather see some progress made to get it resolved :) we need to actually remove glibc'ness completely from kernel. and this will fix itself. > > Hope this helps, > > -Mikko -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
