Jan Kiszka wrote: > 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.
In wrappers.h, as we do for every other variation of the kernel interface. -- Gilles. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaifirstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core