[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200718173145.GA31315@openwall.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 19:31:45 +0200
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: lkrg-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: error: redefinition of ???struct stack_trace??? - Centos 8 with default kernel.
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 06:02:52PM +0200, bryn1u wrote:
> I verified and works for me on Centos 8.
I'm afraid now you need to clarify: did you verify Adam's committed fix
or my suggested alternative fix?
> czw., 16 lip 2020 o 14:10 Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> napisa??(a):
> > commit 32fc7d27ae81cc5254e4c1f28c4e7b05c157bb63
> > Author: Adam_pi3 <pi3@....com.pl>
> > Date: Wed Jul 15 20:26:23 2020 -0400
> >
> > New RHEL kernels define 'struct stack_trace' by themselves. Take this
> > into account
This
> > We should possibly avoid the clash differently, e.g. by using a
> > different struct name when we choose to declare our own. Maybe instead
> > of your patch above, we can add this line:
> >
> > #define stack_trace p_struct_stack_trace
> >
> > right before the "struct stack_trace {" line.
> >
> > Would this work? What do you think?
or that?
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
