Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>>> Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > >>>>> I'm not yet totally up with include/socketcan & include/linux >>>>> seperation (which I don't like to question here). >>>>> I noticed you do patcgh include/socketcan/can/dev.h >>>>> but not include/linux/can/dev.h >>>> Oliver, what was the reason to maintain a redundant >>>> include/linux/can/dev.h? >>> The reason was to allow userspace applications to include that path. It >>> would >>> be very bad, if you would need to adapt the userspace apps to include the >>> socketcan stuff, that is intended to separate the driver includes for older >>> kernels. >>> >>> Maybe we should create symlinks for that ... >> That would be better, indeed, or at least >> >> $ cat include/linux/can/dev.h >> ... >> include/socketcan/can/dev.h >> >> And the link could be created in the Makefile. > > ??? > > AFAIK you can only create symlinks for real files (not directories) in the > SVN. I would suggest to replace the .h-files in 2.6/include/linux with > symlinks pointing to the .h-files in 2.6/include/socketcan
But we could do it in the Makefile, as the Linux kernel does for include/asm. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
