Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> 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.

Ok, ok. My question was about rtdm/rtcan.h redefining what is already
defined in linux/can.h. Would not it make sense to include linux/can.h
instead? Of course, this is not something that needs fixing right now,
but would be better on the long run.

-- 
                                            Gilles.

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

Reply via email to