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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 404B3C83004 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 22:22:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FAB520730 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 22:22:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726560AbgD1WWC (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 18:22:02 -0400 Received: from correo.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:59006 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726044AbgD1WWC (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 18:22:02 -0400 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (unknown [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C9311EB31 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:22:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378A2BAAA3 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:22:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix, from userid 99) id 2D1A3BAC2F; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:22:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0142CDA7B2; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:21:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 192.168.1.97 (192.168.1.97) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:21:57 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int) Received: from us.es (unknown [90.77.255.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: 1984lsi) by entrada.int (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D56EC42EF4E0; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:21:57 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:21:57 +0200 X-SMTPAUTHUS: auth mail.us.es From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Maciej =?utf-8?Q?=C5=BBenczykowski?= Cc: Florian Westphal , Linux Network Development Mailing List , Netfilter Development Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] do not typedef socklen_t on Android Message-ID: <20200428222157.GA30125@salvia> References: <20200421081549.108375-1-zenczykowski@gmail.com> <20200428000640.GE24002@salvia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 05:26:44PM -0700, Maciej Żenczykowski wrote: > I don't know all that much about it. Mostly it just seems to work. > > I'm quoting from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionic_(software) ;-) > > Bionic is basically a BSD licensed C library for use with Linux. > This differs from other BSD C libraries which require a BSD kernel, > and from the GNU C Library (glibc) which uses the GNU Lesser General > Public License. > > For the most part it's supposed to be drop-in compatible I think, > and the kernel headers (uapi) come from some recent version of Linux. > > The license and smaller size are AFAIK the main benefits. > > --- > > Got me curious and: > > I'm not actually sure what defines __ANDROID__, maybe __BIONIC__ would > be a better guard? > > That seems to be defined in bionic/libc/include/sys/cdefs.h > > https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/master/libc/include/sys/cdefs.h#43 > > And the docs here: > > https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/master/docs/defines.md > > do seem to suggest that __BIONIC__ is more equivalent to __GLIBC__ https://sourceforge.net/p/predef/wiki/Libraries/ This one also refers to the existing C library definitions which makes more sense to me too.