Hello Sean, On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 12:10:38 +0000, Sean Young <sean@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:13:38PM +0100, Peter Seiderer wrote: > > Thanks, works for the buildroot use case (disabling > > bpf support unconditionally)... > > > > The reason to provide copies of the linux kernel headers in v4l-utils > > is to be independent of old(-er) headers provided by toolchains? > > > > If so a copy of bpf_common.h is still needed (and the fallback, for > > out of linux kernel usage, define for __NR_bpf in bpf.h enhanced for > > all supported archs)? > > I have seen this problem on debian 7. Why do we care about compiling > on something that ancient? It is not about compiling on what system, it is about which toolchain is used (for cross-compile), and the initial failure comes from the buildroot [1] embedded system autobuild tests... Personally I do not care about these toolchains (but the buildroot people think it is worth to do automatic build tests with them) and can live with the disabling of the bpf support.... Regards, Peter [1] https://buildroot.org/ > > > Sean
