This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Update if.h to match Linux kernel headers?

On 06/23/2016 06:21 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
On 23/06/16 17:06, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 06/23/2016 05:57 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Florian Weimer <>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:10:54 +0200

On 06/17/2016 11:12 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

I'm not entirely sure if userspace can make use of these flags, but
could conceivably write userspace tools and drivers that would.

In <> I
that I presumed the exclusion of IFF_* values not fitting in a "short"
flags field was deliberate.

Can you elaborate way?  Do you fear that we might end up with an ABI
change if the enum promotes to int, not short?  But doesn't do it that
already, due to the value IFF_DYNAMIC = 0x8000?

Because ifr_flags in struct ifreq is 16-bit.

But these flags are also used for ifr_flags?

Sorry, I meant ‘ifa_flags’, an important difference.  Sorry.

So maybe we should put them into a separate enum block and point to struct ifaddrs and getifaddrs?

i don't see how the enum matters.

I meant that for documentation purposes.

and ifr_flags is not the only way to use these
so that should not limit the definitions either.

Yes, ifa_flags uses them (but it's defined in another header files), which is why I suggested adding a comment explaining the difference.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]