From: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:17:23 +0100 > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:51:38AM +0100, Guillaume Nault wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:21:34PM +0100, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: >> > On 01/25/2018 03:58 PM, Guillaume Nault wrote: >> > > Now that linux/libc-compat.h is included in linux/if_ether.h, it is >> > > processed before netinet/in.h. Therefore, it sets the relevant >> > > __UAPI_DEF_* guards to 1 (as _NETINET_IN_H isn't yet defined). >> > > Then netinet/in.h is included, followed by linux/in.h. The later >> > > doesn't realise that what it defines has already been included by >> > > netinet/in.h because the __UAPI_DEF_* guards were set too early. >> > > >> > This is about this commit: >> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=6926e041a8920c8ec27e4e155efa760aa01551fd >> > >> > On option would be to move this into include/uapi/linux/if_ether.h and >> > remove the include for libc-compat.h: >> > #ifndef __UAPI_DEF_ETHHDR >> > #define __UAPI_DEF_ETHHDR 1 >> > #endif >> > >> > This will only work if netinet/if_ether.h is included before >> > linux/if_ether.h, but I think this is very likely. >> > >> I don't see what makes its likely. That's not directly related to your >> point, but for example, glibc guarantees the opposite as it includes >> linux/if_ether.h at the beginning of netinet/if_ether.h. >> >> > I think we can do this because we do not need some special libc handling >> > like it is done for other symbols as __UAPI_DEF_ETHHDR is currently only >> > needed by musl and not by glibc. >> > >> That's ok for me as long as existing projects keep compiling. But all >> __UAPI_DEF_* are currently centralised in libc-compat.h. Adding >> __UAPI_DEF_ETHHDR in if_ether.h looks like defeating the purpose of >> libc-compat.h and I wonder if that'd be accepted. Maybe with a >> different name. >> >> In any case, we're really late in the release cycle. If more discussion >> is needed, it's probably better to revert and take time to work on a >> solution for the next release. >> > Hi David, > > I just realise you've sent your last pull request for this release. I > was waiting for feedbacks in order to avoid a revert. Should I send a > revert now or do you prefer to sort this out later and backport a fix > in 4.15.1? We can do a -stable backport, and I was planning to help looking into this as well. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
