[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201301161422.19202.vapier@gentoo.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:22:16 -0500
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: bhutchings@...arflare.com, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, amwang@...hat.com, tmb@...eia.org,
eblake@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, libvirt-list@...hat.com,
tgraf@...g.ch, schwab@...e.de, carlos@...temhalted.org
Subject: Re: Redefinition of struct in6_addr in <netinet/in.h> and <linux/in6.h>
On Wednesday 16 January 2013 13:59:59 David Miller wrote:
> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
> > if you're not calling the kernel directly, why are you including the
> > kernel headers ? what is the problem people are actually trying to
> > address here (and no, "i want to include both headers" is not the
> > answer) ?
>
> When GLIBC doesn't provide it's own definition of some networking
> macros or interfaces that the kernel provides, people include the
> kernel header.
sounds like glibc's headers are out of date and we should update them to
include the missing definitions
but this is still too vague. what headers/definitions do people want to see
simultaneously included ? changes would be needed on both sides (kernel & C
library).
> This has been done for decades, wake up.
and it's been broken for just as long. no need to be a dick.
-mike
Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists