DAHDI-linux 2.7 Compile Error With CONFIG_DAHDI_NET Enabled

Home » Asterisk Users » DAHDI-linux 2.7 Compile Error With CONFIG_DAHDI_NET Enabled
Asterisk Users 2 Comments

Not sure how I should officially report this, but I’m getting a compile error with DAHDI-linux 2.7 when I define CONFIG_DAHDI_NET in include/dahdi/dahdi_config.h. I am able to compile successfully when I
leave it undefined, but I need to be able to use the network support.

AR /tmp/dahdi-linux-2.7.0-net/drivers/dahdi/oct612x/lib.a
Building modules, stage 2.
MODPOST 0 modules make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-3.4.45′
make -C /lib/modules/3.4.45-smp/build SUBDIRS=/tmp/dahdi-linux-2.7.0-net/drivers/dahdi DAHDI_INCLUDE=/tmp/dahdi-linux-2.7.0-net/include DAHDI_MODULES_EXTRA=” ”
HOTPLUG_FIRMWARE=yes modules DAHDI_BUILD_ALL=m make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-3.4.45′
CC [M] /tmp/dahdi-linux-2.7.0-net/drivers/dahdi/dahdi-base.o
/tmp/dahdi-linux-2.7.0-net/drivers/dahdi/dahdi-base.c: In function
/tmp/dahdi-linux-2.7.0-net/drivers/dahdi/dahdi-base.c:1967:4: error:
‘struct dahdi_chan’ has no member named ‘rxbufpolicy’
make[2]: *** [/tmp/dahdi-linux-2.7.0-net/drivers/dahdi/dahdi-base.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [_module_/tmp/dahdi-linux-2.7.0-net/drivers/dahdi] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-3.4.45′
make: *** [modules] Error 2


2 thoughts on - DAHDI-linux 2.7 Compile Error With CONFIG_DAHDI_NET Enabled

  • You should feel free to open issues at http://issues.asterisk.org.

    Thanks for reporting this.

    I have a patch [1] for the next release. If you are willing, care to apply it to your 2.7.0 tree and check it out?

    If you are building from a tarball you can easily apply it like:

    $ curl “http://git.asterisk.org/gitweb/?p=team/sruffell/dahdi-linux.git;a=patch;h

  • Thank you Shaun, that patch did the trick. DAHDI compiled and appears to be functioning normally.

    I wondered if I might impose upon you for a question. I am in the process of replacing an old router with a T1 interface with a Linux machine. My test rig is currently using a spare TE220F. I know digium’s card were primarily designed to function in a telephony role, but is there any technical reason I should not use them in an exclusively data role as well? I am trying to decide if I should purchase another TE220F
    (which I have experience with) or use a Sangoma product (which I do not).

    Thank you for your time.