Nobuo Iwata <nobuo.iwata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Implementation of this patch depends on Poco C++ > (http://pocoproject.org/). Really? Is that OK? > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/usb/usbip/websocket/COPYING This cannot possibly be necessary. Pointing to the toplevel "COPYING" file should be more than enough, if anything at all. And BTW, the same goes for the tools/usb/usbip/COPYING that seems to have snuck in somehow. I also wonder a bit about the AUTHORS file both places. We have git and MAINTAINERS for such things, don't we? > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/usb/usbip/websocket/configure.ac > @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ > +dnl Process this file with autoconf to produce a configure script. > + > +AC_PREREQ(2.59) > +AC_INIT([usbip-utils], [1.1.1], [linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]) > +AC_DEFINE([USBIP_VERSION], [0x00000111], [binary-coded decimal version number]) This should either use the upper level definitions or have its own namespace. Defining the same symbols at different levels is a recipe for confusion. In fact, you are already out of sync with the definitions in tools/usb/usbip/configure.ac > +extern "C" { > +#include "usbip_common.h" > +#include "usbip_host_driver.h" > +#include "usbip.h" > +} > + > +using namespace ::Poco; > +using namespace ::Poco::Net; > +using namespace ::Poco::Util; > +using namespace ::Usbip::WebSock::Poco; Yuck. Any reason this cannot be written in C? Bjørn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
