Re: [libvirt] Redefinition of struct in6_addr in <netinet/in.h> and <linux/in6.h>
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier(a)gentoo.org> wrote:
On Wednesday 16 January 2013 22:15:38 David Miller wrote:
> From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos(a)systemhalted.org>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:15:03 -0500
>
> > +/* If a glibc-based userspace has already included in.h, then we will
> > not + * define in6_addr (nor the defines), sockaddr_in6, or ipv6_mreq.
> > The + * ABI used by the kernel and by glibc match exactly. Neither the
> > kernel + * nor glibc should break this ABI without coordination.
> > + */
> > +#ifndef _NETINET_IN_H
> > +
>
> I think we should shoot for a non-glibc-centric solution.
>
> I can't imagine that other libc's won't have the same exact problem
> with their netinet/in.h conflicting with the kernel's, redefining
> structures like in6_addr, that we'd want to provide a protection
> scheme for here as well.
yes, the kernel's use of __GLIBC__ in exported headers has already caused
problems in the past. fortunately, it's been reduced down to just one case
now (stat.h). let's not balloon it back up.
-mike
I also see coda.h has grown a __GLIBC__ usage.
In the next revision of the patch I created a single libc-compat.h header
which encompasses the logic for any libc that wants to coordinate with
the kernel headers.
It's simple enough to move all of the __GLIBC__ uses into libc-compat.h,
then you control userspace libc coordination from one file.
Cheers,
Carlos.