From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4B30B3A9.4000905@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:55:21 +0100 From: Wolfgang Grandegger MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4B309A29.6030405@domain.hid> <4B30AF29.4050303@domain.hid> <4B30B154.2010203@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4B30B154.2010203@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Build tests: analogy, blackfin, rtcan and nios2. List-Id: Xenomai life and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: Jan Kiszka , Xenomai core , Wolfgang Grandegger Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>> * rtcan: on blackfin we seem to have a conflict with rtcan. >>> The warning is about CAN_ERR_MASK, sure blackfin is a bit strange to >>> define this in core headers which are included everywhere. This said, >>> not prefixing a Xenomai symbol with something like XN seems to be asking >>> for trouble. Wolfgang, do you think it would be possible to rename the >>> symbols with such prefix? Or do you share some code with socket-can that >>> you do not want to touch? >> CAN_ERR_MASK is part of the Socket-CAN interface (include/linux/can.h), >> it must not be called differently. Blackfin is obviously doing namespace >> pollution which should be fixed upstream and meanwhile worked around in >> Xenomai (e.g. via #undef CAN_ERR_MASK). > > Ok. But according to the build logs, it is redefined in rtdm/rtcan.h. > The error seems to have been fixed upstream, since we get this warning > with 2.6.30 and not with 2.6.31. Right, the error comes from: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.32/arch/blackfin/mach-bf537/include/mach/bf537.h#L20 and is in conflict with "include/linux/can/can.h" anyhow. Wolfgang.