Hi Stephen, On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:42:29AM -0600, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > I understand that musl requires some changes, but copying data is not the > correct way to handle this. Lots of work went into making Glibc and kernel > headers compatiable. It looks like MUSL needs to follow the same agreement. I surely don't get all the relevant details here. A recent discussion with the musl libc maintainer, Rich Felker, indicates that part of that compatibility work is glibc specific[1], since it depends on __GLIBC__ being defined. Denys Vlasenko proposed[2] a different solution. The entire thread is at [3]. [1] http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/aboriginal-landley.net/2015-October/002459.html [2] http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/aboriginal-landley.net/2015-October/002469.html [3] http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/aboriginal-landley.net/2015-October/thread.html baruch > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Baruch Siach <baruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Don't including kernel headers directly to avoid headers conflict like: > > > > In file included from .../sysroot/usr/include/linux/if_bridge.h:18:0, > > from libbridge.h:26, > > from libbridge_if.c:26: > > .../sysroot/usr/include/linux/in6.h:32:8: error: redefinition of ‘struct > > in6_addr’ > > struct in6_addr { > > ^ > > In file included from libbridge.h:24:0, > > from libbridge_if.c:26: > > .../sysroot/usr/include/netinet/in.h:23:8: note: originally defined here > > struct in6_addr { > > ^ > > > > Instead copy the required linux/if_bridge.h definitions into > > libbridge_private.h. > > > > Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch@xxxxxxxxxx> -- http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{= - baruch@xxxxxxxxxx - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -
