Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > 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.
Yes, I'm going to work on RT-Socket-CAN soon anyhow. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
