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.


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to