Re: iptables not building on master

[Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com>]

On 03/06/2012 05:47 PM, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
> Robert Yang wrote on 2012-03-06:
>> Hi Tom,
>> Thanks for the update, the root cause is that iptables offers a kernel
>> header file include/linux/types.h, but it mis-matches the kernel in
>> the sysroot, we can add this:
>> #define __aligned_u64 __u64 __attribute__((aligned(8)))
>> to:
>> iptables-1.4.12.2/include/linux/types.h
>> to fix this problem.
>>
>> Another solution is that as Dexuan suggested we change the order of
>> the include header files, but I'm afraid that may cause other
>> problems, since I think that the pkg's own header file should have a
>> higher priority than the system's, so I think that the current order is correct.
> My understanding is:
> Recently the preferred linux-libc-headers was upgraded to linux-libc-headers-yocto-3.2, that introduced a new struct tpacket_hdr_v1 in linux/if_packet.h and the new struct uses __aligned_u64 but __aligned_u64 is not defined in iptables's own linux/types.h
> Currently in iptables's makefile, its own linux/types.h comes first than that one in our sysroot in the header file search order, and I noticed iptables doesn't have a file linux/if_packet.h. So, with our sysroot's linux/if_package.h and iptables's own linux/types, we get the failure.
>

Yes, you are right:-)

> If we define __aligned_u64 _ in iptables's own linux/types.h, we're still using our sysroot's linux/if_packet.h with iptables's linux/types.h -- I think this is not correct even if the build can pass?  I think we should use header files consistently.
>

Yes, I agree with you ,I was going to change the older of the header files
at first, but after thought for a while, I don't know why iptables carries
part of the kernel header files, I don't know whether change the order of
the headers would cause other problems. I checked the linux/if_packet.h when
MACHINE=qemux86, it is different from the crownbay's, it doesn't have the
__aligned_u64, so I choose the simple and impact less way to fix it:-)

Anyway, if you insist on changing the order, I will try to do it.

// Robert

>
> Thanks,
> -- Dexuan
>
>