This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Redefinition of struct in6_addr in <netinet/in.h> and<linux/in6.h>
- From: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
- To: vapier at gentoo dot org
- Cc: bhutchings at solarflare dot com, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org,yoshfuji at linux-ipv6 dot org, amwang at redhat dot com, tmb at mageia dot org,eblake at redhat dot com, netdev at vger dot kernel dot org, linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org,libvirt-list at redhat dot com, tgraf at suug dot ch, schwab at suse dot de,carlos at systemhalted dot org
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:59:59 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Redefinition of struct in6_addr in <netinet/in.h> and<linux/in6.h>
- References: <201301161205.04502.vapier@gentoo.org><1358356211.2923.25.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com><201301161228.42592.vapier@gentoo.org>
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:28:39 -0500
> if you're not calling the kernel directly, why are you including the kernel
> headers ? what is the problem people are actually trying to address here (and
> no, "i want to include both headers" is not the answer) ?
When GLIBC doesn't provide it's own definition of some networking
macros or interfaces that the kernel provides, people include the
kernel header.
This has been done for decades, wake up.