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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

Reply via email to