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.

Right, the error comes from:

http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.32/arch/blackfin/mach-bf537/include/mach/bf537.h#L20

and is in conflict with "include/linux/can/can.h" anyhow.

Wolfgang.



_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to