From: Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rap...@iki.fi> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:25:13 +0200
> (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 <mikko.rap...@iki.fi> >> 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? I'm ambivalent about the mechanism, and I'm more concerned about covering those three values in your change rather than eliding them.
