From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 21 07:38:01 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A237F775; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:38:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ns.kevlo.org (220-135-115-6.HINET-IP.hinet.net [220.135.115.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57F6C3DC; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from srg.kevlo.org (220-135-115-6.HINET-IP.hinet.net [220.135.115.6]) by ns.kevlo.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s2L7bbNw006594 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:37:40 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from kevlo@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <532BEC4C.6080201@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:37:48 +0800 From: Kevin Lo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Nosay Subject: Re: Definition struct and int References: <53269B0E.5020904@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Hackers , Adrian Chadd X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:38:01 -0000 On 2014/03/18 08:05, Joe Nosay wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Kevin Lo wrote: > >> On 2014/03/17 14:07, Joe Nosay wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Joe Nosay >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Joe Nosay >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Adrian Chadd >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Is this -HEAD, or? >>>>>> >>>>>> -a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 13 March 2014 18:13, Joe Nosay wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Testing of a patch for using UDP Lite on FreeBSD caused no compilation >>>>>>> errors; however, after adding the options of "VIMAGE" and "MROUTING" >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> conf/kern?GENERIC, make buildkernel stops with: >>>>>>> /usr/src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c:1701:18: error: too few arguments >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> function >>>>>>> call, expected 2, have 1 >>>>>>> udp_discardcb(up); >>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ >>>>>>> /usr/src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c:274:1: note: 'udp_discardcb' >>>>>>> >>>>>> declared here >>>>>> >>>>>>> void >>>>>>> ^ >>>>>>> 1 error generated. >>>>>>> *** Error code 1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The file in question of >>>>>>> /usr/src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c >>>>>>> >>>>>>> has the value of >>>>>>> udp_discardcb(struct udpcb *up, int isudp) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> that is causing the problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe that the compiler is looking for a value to int isudp but >>>>>>> >>>>>> that >>>>>> >>>>>>> value does not exist. >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list >>>>>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " >>>>>>> >>>>>> freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> No, it is 10.0 RELEASE #0 r262601 >>>>> >>>>> Last time, I had entered too many files. Here are the relative files. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There was no problem in compiling as listed earlier. I have not >>>>> studied >>>>> C enough to solve this problem; however, I can see that int isudp >>>>> happens >>>>> once while the next closest account is int isudplite. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I've just upgraded source to head. I have three patches for UDP Lite. >>>> The >>>> question is which one(s) should I use. >>>> >>>> The udp-v.diff only has a reference to udp_discardcb up, while patch >>>> udplite and udplite.diff have the struct and int references. >>>> >>>> >>>> Could someone possibly point me towards some online documentation that >>> would allow me to learn of a solution to this problem? This would be much >>> better because I would be solving and learning. >>> >>> Included are the three patches mentioned earlier. >>> >>> Yes, I will be looking at them again. >>> >>> Apologies for any noise and if I am coming off the wrong way. >>> >> Hi Joe, >> >> As I mentioned, my udp-lite's diff no longer applies cleanly against >> -HEAD. I've been busy lately and haven't got time to reply to your >> messages. >> Give me another day or two to cook up a revised patch for you to test. >> Thanks! >> >> Kevin >> > > Alright. The revised patch is available at: http://people.freebsd.org/~kevlo/udplite.diff Kevin