Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> * rtcan: on blackfin we seem to have a conflict with rtcan.
>>> The warning is about CAN_ERR_MASK, sure blackfin is a bit strange to
>>> define this in core headers which are included everywhere. This said,
>>> not prefixing a Xenomai symbol with something like XN seems to be asking
>>> for trouble. Wolfgang, do you think it would be possible to rename the
>>> symbols with such prefix? Or do you share some code with socket-can that
>>> you do not want to touch?
>> CAN_ERR_MASK is part of the Socket-CAN interface (include/linux/can.h),
>> it must not be called differently. Blackfin is obviously doing namespace
>> pollution which should be fixed upstream and meanwhile worked around in
>> Xenomai (e.g. via #undef CAN_ERR_MASK).
> Ok. But according to the build logs, it is redefined in rtdm/rtcan.h.
> The error seems to have been fixed upstream, since we get this warning
> with 2.6.30 and not with 2.6.31.

The RT-SocketCAN API is compatible with the SocketCAN API and therefore
we should not use different names. And there are much more common
defines and names. It is simply stupid to include that header file in a
central place. I tend to fix this be adding "#ifndef" to rtnet.h. I will
have a closer look later.


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to