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