linux/netlink.h

linux/netlink.h

[Laurent Bercot]

  Hello musl people,

  I'm trying out musl and I like it very much so far.
  The only thing that's stopping me for now is that I want to be able
to compile the s6-linux-utils package against musl; that package
contains the s6-devd utility, which reads the netlink for udev events
(so something like mdev can be spawned serially instead of having to
deal with parallelism when spawned from /proc/sys/kernel/hotplug).
Of course, the source code includes <linux/netlink.h>.

  Could you please add a minimal linux/netlink.h to mini-lkh ?
  I just need the following definitions:

  - struct sockaddr_nl
  - AF_NETLINK (already in sys/socket.h if I'm not mistaken)
  - NETLINK_KOBJECT_UEVENT

  I'd submit a patch, but my kernel-fu is very weak, and I'm not sure
what to pull in and what not to, so I better leave it to the specialists.

  Thank you,
  
-- 
  Laurent

Re: linux/netlink.h

[Luca Barbato]

On 07/10/13 02:16, Laurent Bercot wrote:
>  Could you please add a minimal linux/netlink.h to mini-lkh ?

Your distribution doesn't provide the whole set of linux headers
stand-alone?

lu

Re: linux/netlink.h

[Laurent Bercot]

  Hi Luca,

> Your distribution doesn't provide the whole set of linux headers
> stand-alone?

  I can compile my software on top of an existing distribution all
right. But the point is I'm building my own systems by hand without
a distribution, which is precisely why I'm interested in musl. And
it looks like mini-lkh was made for that precise case.

-- 
  Laurent

Re: linux/netlink.h

[John Spencer]

On 10/07/2013 12:42 PM, Laurent Bercot wrote:
>
> Hi Luca,
>
>> Your distribution doesn't provide the whole set of linux headers
>> stand-alone?
>
> I can compile my software on top of an existing distribution all
> right. But the point is I'm building my own systems by hand without
> a distribution, which is precisely why I'm interested in musl. And
> it looks like mini-lkh was made for that precise case.
>

the mini-lkh's are really mini... currently they're barely enough to 
compile a small subset of busybox.

until they become more sophisticated, you can use sabotage's multi-arch
kernel headers tarball:

http://ftp.barfooze.de/pub/sabotage/tarballs/kernel-headers-3.3.4-1.tar.gz

imo a good alternative to downloading the full kernel sources to compile 
the headers.
an additional advantage is that kernel headers are often broken,
the version used by sabotage is known good.

Re: linux/netlink.h

[Laurent Bercot]

On 07/10/2013 13:06, John Spencer wrote:

> the mini-lkh's are really mini... currently they're barely enough to compile a small subset of busybox.

  That would honestly be enough for my needs, with linux/netlink.h added.


> until they become more sophisticated, you can use sabotage's multi-arch
> kernel headers tarball:
>
> http://ftp.barfooze.de/pub/sabotage/tarballs/kernel-headers-3.3.4-1.tar.gz

  It does the job in the meantime, thank you very much !

-- 
  Laurent

Re: linux/netlink.h

[Christian Wiese]

Hi John,

> imo a good alternative to downloading the full kernel sources to compile

> the headers.
> an additional advantage is that kernel headers are often broken,
> the version used by sabotage is known good.

I am curious about what you mean by "kernel headers are often broken".

I am also building custom linux based systems, and I have no problems
using
the corresponding kernel headers for the kernel version I am building.

It would be interesting for me to know what brokeness you experienced in
the
kernel headers.

I already checked the documentation provided by the cross-lfs project, and
it
seems that they do not seem to have issues using the corresponding kernel
headers for the kernel version they use.

Cheers,
Chris

Re: linux/netlink.h

[John Spencer]

On 10/07/2013 05:07 PM, Christian Wiese wrote:
> Hi John,
>
>> imo a good alternative to downloading the full kernel sources to compile
>
>> the headers.
>> an additional advantage is that kernel headers are often broken,
>> the version used by sabotage is known good.
>
> I am curious about what you mean by "kernel headers are often broken".

kernel headers are usually only tested against the kernel - i.e. they 
ship if the kernel compiles. however they often have problems that 
affect userspace apps using them (like including linux/types.h which 
clashes with libc headers, or similar things).


for example, you get a build error when you use kernel 3.8.6 headers to 
compile DOSBOX:

https://sourceforge.net/p/dosbox/patches/258/


a notoriously broken header is ext2_fs.h, which caused problems with 
extlinux in nearly every kernel release - so i decided to put it into 
sabotage directly:

https://github.com/rofl0r/sabotage/commits/master/KEEP/ext2_fs.h

>
> I am also building custom linux based systems, and I have no problems
> using
> the corresponding kernel headers for the kernel version I am building.
>
> It would be interesting for me to know what brokeness you experienced in
> the
> kernel headers.
>
> I already checked the documentation provided by the cross-lfs project, and
> it
> seems that they do not seem to have issues using the corresponding kernel
> headers for the kernel version they use.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>

Re: linux/netlink.h

[Justin Cormack]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:06 PM, John Spencer <maillist-musl@barfooze.de> wrote:
> until they become more sophisticated, you can use sabotage's multi-arch
> kernel headers tarball:
>
> http://ftp.barfooze.de/pub/sabotage/tarballs/kernel-headers-3.3.4-1.tar.gz
>
> imo a good alternative to downloading the full kernel sources to compile the
> headers.
> an additional advantage is that kernel headers are often broken,
> the version used by sabotage is known good.

Does this live in a repository somewhere? It has a few small issues still.

eg it uses EM_ARM without defining it.

Justin

Re: linux/netlink.h

[John Spencer]

On 10/12/2013 07:44 PM, Justin Cormack wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:06 PM, John Spencer<maillist-musl@barfooze.de>  wrote:
>> until they become more sophisticated, you can use sabotage's multi-arch
>> kernel headers tarball:
>>
>> http://ftp.barfooze.de/pub/sabotage/tarballs/kernel-headers-3.3.4-1.tar.gz
>>
>> imo a good alternative to downloading the full kernel sources to compile the
>> headers.
>> an additional advantage is that kernel headers are often broken,
>> the version used by sabotage is known good.
>
> Does this live in a repository somewhere? It has a few small issues still.

i just made it a repo: https://github.com/sabotage-linux/kernel-headers

>
> eg it uses EM_ARM without defining it.

feel free to submit a PR - thanks.