[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1301171153540.15372@nerf07.vanv.qr>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:57:14 +0100 (CET)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: carlos@...temhalted.org, bhutchings@...arflare.com,
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, libc-alpha@...rceware.org, schwab@...e.de
Subject: Re: Redefinition of struct in6_addr in <netinet/in.h> and
<linux/in6.h>
On Thursday 2013-01-17 03:05, David Miller wrote:
>From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...temhalted.org>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:58:47 -0500
>
>> So I just went down the rabbit hole, and the further I get the
>> closer I get to having two exact copies of the same definitions
>> in both glibc and the kernel and using whichever one was included
>> first.
>>
>> Is anyone opposed to that kind of solution?
>
>Sounds interesting, please share :-)
iptables has the same issue, and solved it its way.
(uapi/)linux/netfilter.h is used to get at things like union
nf_inet_addr. This union contains struct in6_addr. There is no include
for in6_addr in netfilter.h itself. This may break the "standalone
compilation" test, but at least allows for specifying the
environment-specific header for in6_addr in the C file:
a. userspace: #include <netinet/in.h> before <linux/netfilter.h>
b. kernel parts: #include <linux/in6.h> before <linux/netfilter.h>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists