From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:51244 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751117AbaLQQt0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2014 11:49:26 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:49:24 +0100 From: David Sterba To: Merlijn Wajer Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] btrfs-progs: Support for musl libc (and perhaps also uclibc) Message-ID: <20141217164924.GB27601@twin.jikos.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <548C4E9D.2080309@wizzup.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <548C4E9D.2080309@wizzup.org> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 03:35:09PM +0100, Merlijn Wajer wrote: [snip] > Attached are the two patches generated with git format-patch. I am aware > that this may not be required format for submitting patches -- but > please give me some time to get used to the etiquette. :-) Thanks, there are minor things that I won't bother to point out to occasional contributors and fix them myself. The only formal requirement is the Signed-off-by tag, you can find the description eg. here http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/SubmittingPatches#L358 > Please let me know if musl-libc (or any other libc) is a supported > platform, and if so, if and how I can improve on said patches. I'm not aware of non-glibc users, but I don't see any problem to add support for more libc implementations. However, I won't regularly verify that it builds so it might break. Seems that only standardized library calls are used in btrfs-progs so any kind of support is probably going to be satisfied by #ifdefs. Your patches are simple so I'll try to schedule them to some 3.18.x update.