Hi Richie, <snip> > >>>> IFF_ECHO was included into Linux 2.6.25 together with the CAN > >>>> subsystem itself. > >>>> So when you run the tests on Kernels < 2.6.25 you don't have CAN > >>>> support and don't need IFF_ECHO too. > >>> Petr, what kernel version and/or distro version did compilation fail on? > >>> There is a small chance someone might be compiling with old kernel > >>> headers relative to their kernel. However it is a challenge to compile > >>> LTP with such an old user land. > >> No, we don't support 2.6.25 :). I was playing with Buildroot distro > >> in my spare time. > >> These embedded toolchains suffer compatibility problems (usually uclibc-ng and > >> sometimes musl lack the support). This problem was when using sourcery-arm-*. > > :-/ > >> But this is definitely not a blocker for this patchset. That lapi is not a must, > >> I can fix it some time later. I usually fix few of these problems before each > >> LTP release. > > Ok. No problem. I wasn't aware that e.g. musl or other toolchains > > select such strange starting points for their include files. > I wonder Petr, is it still necessary to define IFF_ECHO now only > <linux/if.h> is included? Or do they somehow symlink linux/if.h -> > net/if.h? No. > Indeed it seems the current version of uclibc-ng doesn't include > IFF_ECHO in <net/if.h>. OTOH musl does define it. Yes => please keep that definition in can_common.h (enough here, we don't have to bother with if.h when we don't have it yet). And I'll send tonight patch to uclibc-ng. The more mature musl is the less relevant uclibc-ng is. Kind regards, Petr
