From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8107F37 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 01:55:44 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1DC9304053 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 23:55:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id cwDWbg7qce9kCUtU (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 23:55:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 23:55:40 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] linux.h: Use off64_t instead of loff_t Message-ID: <20160113075540.GE21939@infradead.org> References: <20160112200001.GE568@nyan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160112200001.GE568@nyan> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Felix Janda Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 09:00:01PM +0100, Felix Janda wrote: > These are equivalent on glibc, while musl does not know loff_t. > > In the long run, it would be preferable to enable transparent LFS so > that off64_t could be replaced by off_t. > > Signed-off-by: Felix Janda Looks fine, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs