-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32.1k
gh-129719: Restore missing socket.CAN_RAW_ERR_FILTER on Linux #129721
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
gh-129719: Restore missing socket.CAN_RAW_ERR_FILTER on Linux #129721
Conversation
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
e5dc1c8
to
c200548
Compare
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
c200548
to
b20c686
Compare
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
1 similar comment
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
2c5617a
to
bde35e3
Compare
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the future, please don't force push; it just makes reviewing more difficult, and we squash merge at the end anyway.
Regarding the actual change: do we want to backport this? (Not to 3.11, but we could to 3.12+)
cc @erlend-aasland who added it originally, and @serhiy-storchaka who merged the offending PR (GH-30066).
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Library/2025-02-06-11-23-51.gh-issue-129719.Of6rvb.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Library/2025-02-06-11-23-51.gh-issue-129719.Of6rvb.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Peter Bierma <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is trivial enough that we don't need a test. LGTM.
There has been no activity on this PR for a while. Is there an action I (as PR creator) have to take to move this forward? Or do I just have to wait? Either is fine with me, but I'm unfamiliar with the process and I want to be sure I'm not the one holding this up now. |
Thank you, indeed the check is about if test "x$ac_cv_header_linux_can_raw_h" = xyes
then :
printf "%s\n" "#define HAVE_LINUX_CAN_RAW_H 1" >>confdefs.h
fi |
…pythonGH-129721) (cherry picked from commit ce31ae5) Co-authored-by: Jeroen Bogers <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: blurb-it[bot] <43283697+blurb-it[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Peter Bierma <[email protected]>
GH-132702 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch. |
GH-129721) (#132702) gh-129719: Restore missing `socket.CAN_RAW_ERR_FILTER` on Linux (GH-129721) (cherry picked from commit ce31ae5) Co-authored-by: Jeroen Bogers <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: blurb-it[bot] <43283697+blurb-it[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Peter Bierma <[email protected]>
Restore
socket.CAN_RAW_ERR_FILTER
on Linux by looking at theHAVE_LINUX_CAN_RAW_H
flag, as thelinux/can/raw.h
file defines this value in an enum and not a normal define.As
linux/can/raw.h
should always contain the value, I believe this change is safe to make.📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--129721.org.readthedocs.build/