[OE-core] [PATCH] linux-libc-headers: fix duplicate IFF_LOWER_UP DORMANT ECHO on musl

[Andre McCurdy]

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis at denix.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 04:20:41PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 7:17 AM,  <Mikko.Rapeli at bmw.de> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I'm chipping in since I've been messing with these things a bit in upstream
>> > Linux kernel.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 06:37:52AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:46 AM, André Draszik <git at andred.net> wrote:
>> >> > connman is not doing anything wrong here.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> yes I am aware of this
>> >>
>> >> > The kernel is redefining IFF_LOWER_UP, because it thinks the libc doesn't
>> >> > define it yet (and glibc doesn't).
>> >> >
>> >> > libc-compat.h is the way to solve these kind of issues. There also is https:
>> >> > //lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/12/238 which is very similar. I'll pick that instead.
>> >> >
>> >> see the comment https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/16/121
>> >> that worries me for this patch
>> >
>> > I'm aware of those review comments but I have not seen any patches posted which
>> > fix the problem in some other way. Thus I would propose to apply these patches
>> > as a workaround until upstream fixes the issues.
>> >
>> > These header files do not change that often either.
>>
>> problem is you become incompatible ABI forever that worries me.
>
> +1
>
>> However if bruce is fine to carry this patch as part of linux-yocto
>> I might relent. It still will be hassle where folks will have to apply
>> this patch to there kernels if they are building musl based systems.
>
> Don't forget that not everyone is using linux-yocto kernel!

Neither is linux-libc-headers, so getting these musl patches into the
linux-yocto kernel isn't going to change much...

>> >> I am not questioning the correctness of patch too. But
>> >> it would be better to get this patch accepted into kernel
>> >> before applying to OE since these are kind of patches which
>> >> you can get stuck with for life if upstream is not accepting it.
>> >
>> > Upstream-Status: Denied
>> >
>> > would be a correct marker for now I guess.
>>
>> I would rather see some progress made to get it resolved :)
>> we need to actually remove glibc'ness completely from kernel.
>> and this will fix itself.
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core