[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0ec2bb3196283b5268da1e2e27962a1b@hauke-m.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:01:33 +0200
From: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>
To: davem@...emloft.net
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jarod@...hat.com, jogo@...nwrt.org, david.heidelberger@...t.cz,
maillist-linux@...fooze.de, mikko.rapeli@....fi
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] uapi glibc compat: fix musl libc compatibility
On 2017-03-12 23:00, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> The code from libc-compat.h depends on some glibc specific defines and
> causes compile problems with the musl libc. These patches remove some
> of the glibc dependencies. With these patches the LEDE (OpenWrt) base
> user space applications can be build with unmodified kernel headers and
> musl libc.
>
> This was compile tested with the user space from LEDE (OpenWrt) with
> musl 1.1.16, glibc 2.25 and uClibc-ng 1.0.22.
>
> David Heidelberger (1):
> uapi/if_ether.h: prevent redefinition of struct ethhdr
>
> Hauke Mehrtens (3):
> uapi glibc compat: add libc compat code when not build for kernel
> uapi glibc compat: fix build if libc defines IFF_ECHO
> uapi glibc compat: Do not check for __USE_MISC
>
> include/uapi/linux/if_ether.h | 3 +++
> include/uapi/linux/libc-compat.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Did I send this to the correct maintainer? I am unsure through which
maintainer this should go. I saw that some patches for the libc-compat.h
file went trough David Miller, so I tried the same.
Hauke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists