uapi: MAX_ADDR_LEN vs. numeric 32
Hi,
First, thanks Dmitry for fixing several uapi compilation problems in
user space. I got a bit demotivated about the slow review progress, e.g.
no feedback what so ever, on some of the patches, but lets try again...
I rebased my tree now and saw
commit 745cb7f8a5de0805cade3de3991b7a95317c7c73
Author: Dmitry V. Levin
Date: Tue Mar 7 23:50:50 2017 +0300
uapi: fix linux/packet_diag.h userspace compilation error
which does:
--- a/include/uapi/linux/packet_diag.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/packet_diag.h
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ struct packet_diag_mclist {
__u32 pdmc_count;
__u16 pdmc_type;
__u16 pdmc_alen;
- __u8pdmc_addr[MAX_ADDR_LEN];
+ __u8pdmc_addr[32]; /* MAX_ADDR_LEN */
};
struct packet_diag_ring {
In my tree I had fixed that case with:
--- a/include/uapi/linux/packet_diag.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/packet_diag.h
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
#define __PACKET_DIAG_H__
#include
+#include
struct packet_diag_req {
__u8sdiag_family;
since netdevice.h has the definition also in user space
#define MAX_ADDR_LEN32 /* Largest hardware address length */
I find using MAX_ADDR_LEN better than numeric 32, though I doubt this will
change any time soon. Would you mind if I change packet_diag.h and
if_link.h to use that instead and fix the userspace compilation
problems by including netdevice.h?
Thanks,
-Mikko
Re: uapi: MAX_ADDR_LEN vs. numeric 32
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 12:33:25AM +0300, Mikko Rapeli wrote:
> First, thanks Dmitry for fixing several uapi compilation problems in
> user space. I got a bit demotivated
That's quite understandable.
> about the slow review progress, e.g.
> no feedback what so ever, on some of the patches, but lets try again...
>
> I rebased my tree now and saw
>
> commit 745cb7f8a5de0805cade3de3991b7a95317c7c73
> Author: Dmitry V. Levin
> Date: Tue Mar 7 23:50:50 2017 +0300
>
> uapi: fix linux/packet_diag.h userspace compilation error
>
> which does:
>
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/packet_diag.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/packet_diag.h
> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ struct packet_diag_mclist {
> __u32 pdmc_count;
> __u16 pdmc_type;
> __u16 pdmc_alen;
> - __u8pdmc_addr[MAX_ADDR_LEN];
> + __u8pdmc_addr[32]; /* MAX_ADDR_LEN */
> };
>
> struct packet_diag_ring {
>
> In my tree I had fixed that case with:
>
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/packet_diag.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/packet_diag.h
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> #define __PACKET_DIAG_H__
>
> #include
> +#include
>
> struct packet_diag_req {
> __u8sdiag_family;
>
> since netdevice.h has the definition also in user space
>
> #define MAX_ADDR_LEN32 /* Largest hardware address length */
>
> I find using MAX_ADDR_LEN better than numeric 32, though I doubt this will
> change any time soon. Would you mind if I change packet_diag.h and
> if_link.h to use that instead and fix the userspace compilation
> problems by including netdevice.h?
The alternative fix, that is, to include
which pulls in other headers and a lot of definitions with them,
has been mentioned in the discussion, too.
We decided that the fix that was applied would be the least of all evils.
--
ldv
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: uapi: MAX_ADDR_LEN vs. numeric 32
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 01:25:19AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 12:33:25AM +0300, Mikko Rapeli wrote: > > > > I find using MAX_ADDR_LEN better than numeric 32, though I doubt this will > > change any time soon. Would you mind if I change packet_diag.h and > > if_link.h to use that instead and fix the userspace compilation > > problems by including netdevice.h? > > The alternative fix, that is, to include > which pulls in other headers and a lot of definitions with them, > has been mentioned in the discussion, too. > We decided that the fix that was applied would be the least of all evils. Ok, that's fine then. I'll drop my netdevice.h inclusion patch. Thanks, -Mikko
