Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>> Kurt Van Dijck wrote:
>>>> I'm not yet totally up with include/socketcan & include/linux >>>> seperation (which I don't like to question here). >>>> I noticed you do patcgh include/socketcan/can/dev.h >>>> but not include/linux/can/dev.h >>> Oliver, what was the reason to maintain a redundant include/linux/can/dev.h? >> The reason was to allow userspace applications to include that path. It would >> be very bad, if you would need to adapt the userspace apps to include the >> socketcan stuff, that is intended to separate the driver includes for older >> kernels. >> >> Maybe we should create symlinks for that ... > > That would be better, indeed, or at least > > $ cat include/linux/can/dev.h > ... > include/socketcan/can/dev.h > > And the link could be created in the Makefile. ??? AFAIK you can only create symlinks for real files (not directories) in the SVN. I would suggest to replace the .h-files in 2.6/include/linux with symlinks pointing to the .h-files in 2.6/include/socketcan Oliver _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
