Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > 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.
Hm - i still don't have a idea how this is done. For me it would be important, that userspace Makefiles like the current can-utils/Makefile do not need to be changed. Is this possible? Regards, Oliver _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
