On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rap...@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 05:24:20PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>> >> > +#ifdef __KERNEL__
>> >> > +#include <linux/time.h>
>> >> > +#else
>> >> > +#include <time.h>
>> >> > +#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
>> >> This will break applications that include <linux/time.h> manually.
>> >> I previously sent a patch to use libc-compat to make compilation succeed
>> >> when both are included in the case where <linux/time.h> is included after
>> >> <time.h>.
>> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/12/872
>> >> The inverse will require changes to the libc header to avoid redefining
>> >> symbols already defined by <linux/time.h>
>> >> The second patch in that 2-patch set included <linux/time.h>
>> >> unconditionally after the fix. This broke builds that also included
>> >> <time.h> in the wrong order. I did not resubmit the first patch as a
>> >> stand-alone, as it is not sufficient to avoid breakage.
>> > I wasn't aware of your change, but I was about to send this to fix the
>> > case when glibc <time.h> is included before <linux/time.h>:
>> > https://github.com/mcfrisk/linux/commit/f3952a27b8a21c6478d26e6246055383483f6a66
>> There are a few differences between the two. Including <time.h> does not
>> unconditionally define all the symbols. Some are conditional on additional
>> state, such as __timespec_defined.
> Yep, your patch seems better for libc-compat.h. Could you send it again?
Okay. Or feel free to include it in the patchset if that helps resolve
>> > I don't like leaving a few dozen non-compiling header files into uapi.
>> I agree, but I do not see a simple solution.
>> Unless libc has the analogous change, including either <time.h> or
>> <linux/time.h> in userspace can unfortunately cause breakage.
>> The added include if __KERNEL__ is defined should be safe, though.
> Yes, for the kernel side, but your libc-compat change would nice for
> userspace, where something will break for sure, but providing source
> API compatibility is sometimes impossible.
> To summarize, this change from me, and your libc-compat.c for time.h, or?
I'm still afraid that this patch as is will break builds that include