From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F96C433E0 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:10:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75192075A for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:10:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1343692AbhA0PJ3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:09:29 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50604 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235638AbhA0PIK (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:08:10 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84A70B74D; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:07:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 16:07:27 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Richard Palethorpe , Oliver Hartkopp , Marc Kleine-Budde , ltp@lists.linux.it, linux-can@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 2/7] can: Add can_common.h for vcan device setup Message-ID: Reply-To: Petr Vorel References: <20210120143723.26483-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com> <20210120143723.26483-3-rpalethorpe@suse.com> <058a6f05-d5ca-0746-dc4e-007253d3a84d@hartkopp.net> <87bldd9t9i.fsf@suse.de> <20210126212855.GC15365@pevik> <64f599af-f2a7-901d-06a6-a5ff56a107a2@hartkopp.net> <87im7i94iu.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-can@vger.kernel.org Hi Richie, ... > > I wonder Petr, is it still necessary to define IFF_ECHO now only > > is included? Or do they somehow symlink linux/if.h -> > > net/if.h? > No. > > Indeed it seems the current version of uclibc-ng doesn't include > > IFF_ECHO in . OTOH musl does define it. > Yes => please keep that definition in can_common.h (enough here, we don't have > to bother with if.h when we don't have it yet). > And I'll send tonight patch to uclibc-ng. > The more mature musl is the less relevant uclibc-ng is. Just for a record, I was wrong. Using is enough, no need to keep definition on can_common.h. Sorry for wasting your time. I mixed two problems: and conflict (there are more headers which conflict) [1] and sometimes missing definition on uclibc-ng. *But* musl defines IFF_ECHO in as they try to allow people not having to depend on , which is IMHO better than blindly relying on which glibc and uclibc{,-ng} (which follows glibc) does much more than musl: $ git grep '^#include ' |wc -l 43 # glibc 37 # uclibc-ng 3 # musl Kind regards, Petr [1] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Synchronizing_Headers#Known_Pairs_of_Headers_that_Conflict