On 14/02/2019 08:00, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 2019-02-13 22:18, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> The current check to test if usbfs support should be compiled or not
>> solely relies on the presence of <linux/usbdevice_fs.h>, without
>> actually checking that all definition used by Qemu are provided by
>> this header file.
>>
>> With sufficiently old kernel headers, <linux/usbdevice_fs.h> may be
>> present, but some of the definitions needed by Qemu may not be
>> available.
>>
>> This commit improves the check by building a small program that
>> actually tests whether the necessary definitions are available.
>>
>> In addition, it fixes a bug where have_usbfs was set to "yes"
>> regardless of the result of the test.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazz...@bootlin.com>
>> ---
>> configure | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/configure b/configure
>> index 3d89870d99..799c8e3b08 100755
>> --- a/configure
>> +++ b/configure
>> @@ -4266,10 +4266,25 @@ fi
>> # check for usbfs
>> have_usbfs=no
>> if test "$linux_user" = "yes"; then
>> - if check_include linux/usbdevice_fs.h; then
>> + cat > $TMPC << EOF
>> +#include <linux/usbdevice_fs.h>
>> +
>> +#ifndef USBDEVFS_GET_CAPABILITIES
>> +#error "USBDEVFS_GET_CAPABILITIES undefined"
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +#ifndef USBDEVFS_DISCONNECT_CLAIM
>> +#error "USBDEVFS_DISCONNECT_CLAIM undefined"
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +int main(void)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +EOF
>> + if compile_prog "" ""; then
>> have_usbfs=yes
>> fi
>> - have_usbfs=yes
>> fi
>>
>> # check for fallocate
>
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
>
Applied to my trivial-patches branch.
Thanks,
Laurent
