All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 11:25:07 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170308162507.GY1520@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a360ec42-33ca-5e89-3d70-3b1c9a011c7f@redhat.com>

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote:
> > Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers,
> > and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are used in
> > uapi headers to prevent definition of conflicting structures/constants.
> > There is no such detection for other c libraries, for them the
> > _UAPI_DEF_* macros are always defined as 1, and so none of the possibly
> > conflicting definitions are suppressed.
> > 
> > This patch enables non-glibc c libraries to request the suppression of
> > any specific interface by defining the corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macro
> > as 0.
> > 
> > This patch together with the recent musl libc commit
> > 
> > http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/commit/?id=04983f2272382af92eb8f8838964ff944fbb8258
> 
> Would it be possible to amend the musl patch to define the macros to 1.

I don't follow. They're defined to 0 explicitly to tell the kernel
headers not to define their own versions of these structs, etc. since
they would clash. Defining to 1 would have the opposite meaning.

Rich

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 11:25:07 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170308162507.GY1520@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a360ec42-33ca-5e89-3d70-3b1c9a011c7f@redhat.com>

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote:
> > Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers,
> > and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are used in
> > uapi headers to prevent definition of conflicting structures/constants.
> > There is no such detection for other c libraries, for them the
> > _UAPI_DEF_* macros are always defined as 1, and so none of the possibly
> > conflicting definitions are suppressed.
> > 
> > This patch enables non-glibc c libraries to request the suppression of
> > any specific interface by defining the corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macro
> > as 0.
> > 
> > This patch together with the recent musl libc commit
> > 
> > http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/commit/?id=04983f2272382af92eb8f8838964ff944fbb8258
> 
> Would it be possible to amend the musl patch to define the macros to 1.

I don't follow. They're defined to 0 explicitly to tell the kernel
headers not to define their own versions of these structs, etc. since
they would clash. Defining to 1 would have the opposite meaning.

Rich

  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-08 16:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-11 12:08 [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions Felix Janda
2017-03-08 12:46 ` David Woodhouse
2017-03-08 16:39   ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-04-25  6:45     ` [musl] " Hauke Mehrtens
2017-04-25  6:45       ` Hauke Mehrtens
2017-04-25 12:29       ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-04-25 12:29         ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-04-25 17:00         ` [musl] " Rich Felker
2017-04-25 17:00           ` Rich Felker
2017-06-02  7:07         ` [musl] " Florian Weimer
2017-06-02  7:07           ` Florian Weimer
2017-04-25  6:37   ` Hauke Mehrtens
2017-04-25  6:37     ` Hauke Mehrtens
2017-04-25 12:13     ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-04-25 12:13       ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-07-08 20:27       ` Felix Janda
2017-07-08 20:27         ` Felix Janda
2017-03-08 15:53 ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-03-08 16:25   ` Rich Felker [this message]
2017-03-08 16:25     ` Rich Felker
2017-03-08 17:29     ` [musl] " Carlos O'Donell
2017-03-08 17:29       ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-03-09  0:14   ` Szabolcs Nagy
2017-03-09  0:51     ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-03-09  2:01       ` [musl] " Rich Felker
2017-03-09  2:01         ` Rich Felker
2017-04-25 13:22     ` Florian Weimer
2017-04-25 13:22       ` Florian Weimer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170308162507.GY1520@brightrain.aerifal.cx \
    --to=dalias@aerifal.cx \
    --cc=carlos@redhat.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.