From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mikko Rapeli Subject: Re: [PATCH] uapi glibc compat: fix cases where glibc net/if.h is included before linux/if.h Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:25:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20160226072513.GH6104@lakka.kapsi.fi> References: <1454853801-18064-1-git-send-email-mikko.rapeli@iki.fi> <20160217.104620.239734387234680136.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: shemming-43mecJUBy8ZBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, jwboyer-rxtnV0ftBwyoClj4AeEUq9i2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org, pablo-Cap9r6Oaw4JrovVCs/uTlw@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, netfilter-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, libc-alpha-9JcytcrH/bA+uJoB2kUjGw@public.gmane.org To: David Miller Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160217.104620.239734387234680136.davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org (Adding libc-alpha list, review of https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/7/89 ) On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:46:20AM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Mikko Rapeli > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:03:21 +0200 > > > @@ -68,6 +72,8 @@ > > * @IFF_ECHO: echo sent packets. Volatile. > > */ > > enum net_device_flags { > > +/* for compatibility with glibc net/if.h */ > > +#if __UAPI_DEF_IF_NET_DEVICE_FLAGS > > IFF_UP = 1<<0, /* sysfs */ > > IFF_BROADCAST = 1<<1, /* volatile */ > > IFF_DEBUG = 1<<2, /* sysfs */ > > @@ -84,11 +90,14 @@ enum net_device_flags { > > IFF_PORTSEL = 1<<13, /* sysfs */ > > IFF_AUTOMEDIA = 1<<14, /* sysfs */ > > IFF_DYNAMIC = 1<<15, /* sysfs */ > > +#endif /* __UAPI_DEF_IF_NET_DEVICE_FLAGS */ > > IFF_LOWER_UP = 1<<16, /* volatile */ > > IFF_DORMANT = 1<<17, /* volatile */ > > IFF_ECHO = 1<<18, /* volatile */ > > }; > > This is going to get messy is IFF_LOWER_UP, IFF_DORMANT, and IFF_ECHO > get added the the glibc header. Why not just handle it now with > another __UAPI_DEF_FOO guard so that the additions to net/if.h can > deal with this case too. Do you mean that the enum should be protected with a single guard or should I have one guard for current conflicts and one for the future if glibc headers include IFF_LOWER_UP and others? -Mikko