On 19/03/2020 22:01, Simon Kelley wrote:
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commit;h=0506a5ed4e56863627c54aedad30ad61221292ef


should handle both old kernel header files and old kernels, in any
combination.

I really dislike this approach because it makes the assumption that no other symbol will take No 5.

Whilst this might be true for generic linux, is it true for customised linux?
Or to put it another way I can point to many examples cross BSD where the ioctls differ in number but not name.

You might take the view "So what? We just support generic linux.".

I have started to take the hard stance with Arch Linux which shipped latest kernel headers and support that on an old LTS kernel. It's not maintainable because I've had 3 instances where dhcpcd used to do this and then promptly crashed on newer kernels because they had customised headers.

Modern software should not need this hack. Either #ifdef around it or require userland headers to define it. Don't hardcode it as it's not userlands responsibility to do it.

See the similar case where OpenBSD removed a ioctl but let it in the header - even worse!!

Roy

_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

Reply via email to