From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] headers, ppp: Add missing #include to Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 13:40:20 +0100 Message-ID: <1312893620.2591.1222.camel@deadeye> References: <1312809302.2591.1139.camel@deadeye> <1312809919.2591.1152.camel@deadeye> <20110809.002738.679747111943821641.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-5kjS+KeVFbeHVfj2rjjM" Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110809.002738.679747111943821641.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-ppp-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --=-5kjS+KeVFbeHVfj2rjjM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 00:27 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Ben Hutchings > Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 14:25:19 +0100 >=20 > > uses various types defined in . > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings >=20 > Unfortunately there is a "net/if_ppp.h" provided by glibc that > includes "net/ppp_defs.h", and all of this is presumably in order > to discourage direct use of the kernel headers. >=20 > Even though net/ppp_defs.h ends up including linux/ppp_defs.h > anyways. >=20 > Whilst I think your efforts are to be commended, we can't start doing > or else we'll start breaking the build in various unexpected ways. >=20 > The SIOCDEVPRIVATE (defined by GLIBC in bits/ioctls.h) case is just > one such example. I did try to check for these cases, but obviously missed some. I'll re-post the series without these ones. In the longer term I would really like to solve this mess somehow. glibc is obviously duplicating a lot of definitions in different headers (but tends to lag behind a little) and other C libraries may also have to duplicate that work for compatibility. Some kernel headers already *do* include headers such as that can conflict with C library headers, sometimes requiring userland to work around the conflict somehow. Ben. --=-5kjS+KeVFbeHVfj2rjjM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUATkEqtOe/yOyVhhEJAQq8qA/7Ba+KIB0tKdbdOpDPrPFhwNn2AF1mb9OM yGRZnjrmeMUuqBeWeWVDiT6ps2LYofCQw4dRJnteSTfO6RmGQgifOUVz7k6HjZpz HDmT3uSZBgbRsZeXWfnrgheyYKWc2kQPu/wGh3zUZH4gYptLkYjrol49PI6b6vw8 pM/rFP55tTIj15RMGMhm6I9pJ951pnyfbnXvgjX0jMUa+HA/fMkRSXx6Zku+iu7O cF0GbHsr6HBjSvK2Q6A9qLorntIaIGIgH197UOWObL63d7XjchmF4fSsGUZlki8a kZL8SSTJ3QVJU1mEHizaObg4nQ4gXly0E/mwj2GdXHqE4pgHpePbrxws/dqY/ibd UiWA3RdQaU0Mk4TcGa9ZHpj/y0SsDgxKlo6DJZl5IDxw0QMexUwxC2/uIfbcYerI xtfxheNVXo2VHf4VRP6VgkJxS2x/lFYl/RCMnLuI3KQxnXMwquNp2TSniQlyFQ3g ITs2XrJ38V+Do3uOw4555tg3/hpeZblNcxKwDHLdN0VWRouvYWRERCFihv5JlvIO rjQ6UrURSZtNG/Y3++5FvYoM+a5JTetL/Ipn/g2+UWDZru7K/DpqMxHibSJap5Ek g8xFpfiahdrvvh7SGZh2uKI1ctrH36di3aFuZWIxe7eX+gs5j6TDmrdj2Oy3DE76 1iMx+63s8Ao= =/6m1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-5kjS+KeVFbeHVfj2rjjM--