Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > 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.
Right. We just need to take care for pre-CAN kernels. Jan
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaiemail@example.com https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core