Hi Kristof,
A quick question for you, see below
On 24/02/2022 17:55, Kristof Provost via Openvpn-devel wrote:
--- a/configure.ac
+++ b/configure.ac
@@ -787,7 +787,20 @@ dnl
AC_DEFINE(ENABLE_DCO, 1, [Enable data channel offload
for Linux])
AC_MSG_NOTICE([Enabled ovpn-dco support for Linux])
;;
-
+ *-*-freebsd*)
+ DCO_CFLAGS="-I${DCO_SOURCEDIR}"
+ saved_CFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
+ CFLAGS="${CFLAGS} ${DCO_CFLAGS}"
+ AC_CHECK_HEADERS(
+ [if_ovpn.h],
+ ,
+ [AC_MSG_ERROR([if_ovpn.h is missing
(use DCO_SOURCEDIR to set path to it, CFLAGS=${CFLAGS})])]
+ )
+ CFLAGS=${saved_CFLAGS}
+ LIBS="${LIBS} -lnv"
+ AC_DEFINE(ENABLE_DCO, 1, [Enable data channel offload
for FreeBSD])
+ AC_MSG_NOTICE([Enabled ovpn-dco support for FreeBSD])
+ ;;
If you double check the latest dco branch, you will see that I have
dropped the DCO_SOURCEDIR variable and I have rather switched to "let's
include the kernel API header in the openvpn repository all the time and
be happy with it".
The idea is that the kernel API will always be backwards compatible,
therefore having a stale header will never be a problem. It can be
updated when a new feature is implemented in openvpn itself. (a similar
approach is taken by hostapd or iw on Linux, where they ship a copy of
nl80211.h)
On the other hand, we drastically simplify the configure logic and avoid
having to deal with this variable which may have different pitfalls on
different platforms.
Do you have any opinion about the above? or shipping a copy of the
header with openvpn source code is fine with you?
Regards,
p.s. as a side note, the rest of the code contains some "code style"
issues. Nothing major, but wanted to mention it (we can discuss on IRC
if you want).
--
Antonio Quartulli
_______________________________________________
Openvpn-devel mailing list
Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
