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 187E229DF5 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:44:40 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF13A304039 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:44:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id YEitfvxbisyiSc0f for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:44:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:44:33 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: guard fsxattr definition for newer kernels Message-ID: <20160209214433.GD14668@dastard> References: <56BA24A9.4090403@redhat.com> <20160209195502.GR27429@dastard> <56BA4495.9060304@redhat.com> <20160209211010.GA14668@dastard> <56BA59B6.3030803@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56BA59B6.3030803@sandeen.net> 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: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 03:27:18PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > On 2/9/16 3:10 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 01:57:09PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> On 2/9/16 1:55 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:40:57AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>>> After 334e580, > >>>> fs: XFS_IOC_FS[SG]SETXATTR to FS_IOC_FS[SG]ETXATTR promotion > >>>> > >>>> the file include/linux/fs.h now defines struct fsxattr. > >>>> > >>>> It defines FS_IOC_FSGETXATTR as well, so use that to wrap > >>>> our local definition, and skip it if the kernel is providing > >>>> it so that we don't get multiple definitions. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen > >>>> --- > >>>> > >>>> Should the kernel also #define HAVE_FSXATTR to help existing > >>>> xfsprogs-devel installations? > >>>> > >>>> (And what if headers are included in the other order? Should > >>>> we try to guard on the kernel side or no?) > >>> > >>> I've already sent a patch to fix this - it was with the foreign > >>> filesystem xfs_quota patch.... > >> > >> Oh, sorry, spaced it. > >> > >> What do you think of the HAVE_FSXATTR definition in fs.h? > > > > Which fs.h? The include/linux/fs.h file does not have such > > guards... > > If include/linux/fs.h defined HAVE_FSXATTR, a subsequent inclusion > of xfs_fs.h would not redefine the structure, because it is > guarded with that (for irix!) That's why I changed it to check if the ioctl is defined, rather than checking for HAVE_FSXATTR. Looking at it, what I probably should do is something more "special" in the platform headers, so the xfs_fs.h is kept identical across kernel and userspace... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs