On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 15:23 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > I'm suggesting that if you want to change things around as you did, you
> > should make sure the users of those headers adapt to cope. You did fix
> > the in-kernel users; you neglected to fix glibc -- and as far as I can
> > tell you didn't
From: Thomas Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:47:21 +0100
> * David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-06 16:56
> > That's enough for me.
> >
> > Thomas we need to restore things to how they were before.
> > If that means including if_addr.h from rtnetlink.h so be it.
> >
> > We
* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-06 16:56
> That's enough for me.
>
> Thomas we need to restore things to how they were before.
> If that means including if_addr.h from rtnetlink.h so be it.
>
> We can't break shit like this, there are no excuses, especially
> now that we properly frob
From: Stefan Rompf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 20:32:40 +0100 (MET)
> Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 10:13 schrieb Thomas Graf:
>
> > I do not agree with the change to include if_addr.h in rtnetlink.h.
> > The point is to move bits apart and have multiple small pieces
> > of header fil
* Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-06 20:34
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:26:39PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > * Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-06 17:13
> > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:31:46PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > >
> > > > At the time they were added they were meant to be expor
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:26:39PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> * Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-06 17:13
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:31:46PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> >
> > > At the time they were added they were meant to be exported but netlink
> > > has evolved and we now have a type
* Stefan Rompf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-06 20:32
> According to a user's report, your change also broke compilation of my
> dhcpclient because it neeeds if_addr.h since 2.6.19. Any suggestion how to
> make one source code build on 2.6.19 and older headers? I hope you don't want
> me to check
* Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-06 17:13
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:31:46PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
>
> > At the time they were added they were meant to be exported but netlink
> > has evolved and we now have a type safe API.
>
> Where? AFAICS, netlink might be considered type-safe on
Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 10:13 schrieb Thomas Graf:
> I do not agree with the change to include if_addr.h in rtnetlink.h.
> The point is to move bits apart and have multiple small pieces
> of header files defining a specific rtnetlink family which are a
> lot easier to maintain for both kernel
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:31:46PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> At the time they were added they were meant to be exported but netlink
> has evolved and we now have a type safe API.
Where? AFAICS, netlink might be considered type-safe only within an
address family...
-
To unsubscribe from this l
* Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-06 15:18
> There are the kernel's own headers and kernel ABI headers for userland use.
> Until recently the latter has been maintained by various distributions
> and manually occassionally updated to sync a little bit with kernel ABI
> additions (new sysc
* David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-06 14:07
> On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 14:59 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that the kernel has to keep macros around which
> > are of no use to the kernel itself just because glibc uses them?
>
> No, although in fact that _is_ the only rea
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 02:07:19PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 14:59 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that the kernel has to keep macros around which
> > are of no use to the kernel itself just because glibc uses them?
>
> No, although in fact that _is_ th
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 14:59 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> Are you suggesting that the kernel has to keep macros around which
> are of no use to the kernel itself just because glibc uses them?
No, although in fact that _is_ the only reason we use these horrid __uXX
types rather than proper C datatype
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 14:57 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Yes, but as I said, I'd need to add configure checks for that, using
> #include
> alone breaks build with older headers.
I was thinking that the #ifndef IFA_MAX you already have ought to be
sufficient for that. Or even checking KERNEL_VERS
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:51:07PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 14:43 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > +/* 2.6.19 kernel headers helpfully removed some macros and
> > + moved lots of stuff into new headers, some of which aren't
> > + included by linux/rtnetlink.h.
* Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-06 14:43
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:01:54PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > No. They _are_ doing it right -- they're running 'make headers_install'
> > against the 2.6.19 kernel and only _now_ are they finding that we broke
> > it without even the cou
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 14:43 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> +/* 2.6.19 kernel headers helpfully removed some macros and
> + moved lots of stuff into new headers, some of which aren't
> + included by linux/rtnetlink.h. */
> +
> +#ifndef IFA_MAX
> +struct ifaddrmsg
> +{
> + uint8_t ifa_family;
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:01:54PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> No. They _are_ doing it right -- they're running 'make headers_install'
> against the 2.6.19 kernel and only _now_ are they finding that we broke
> it without even the courtesy of a warning, let alone any consultation.
>
> If _we_
On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 10:13 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> Userspace is not supposd to directly include kernel headers, instead
> it has to make local copies and compile against them.
No. It was _never_ sensible to simply declare that userspace "shall not
use kernel headers" in the absence of any ser
* David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-03 12:25
> Thomas, this is in response to your changes in
> http://git.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=1823730fbc89fadde72a7bb3b7bdf03cc7b8835c;hp=47f68512d2685431f1781830dfcbab31bda87644
> in which you create a
On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 17:20 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> The kernel headers installed by Linux 2.6.19-rc1 "make
> headers_install" do not work for building glibc, because glibc expects
> to provide various definitions, some of which have
> been moved to and some of which have been removed
> al
22 matches
Mail list logo
