* [PATCH] xfsprogs: guard fsxattr definition for newer kernels
@ 2016-02-09 17:40 Eric Sandeen
2016-02-09 19:55 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2016-02-09 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xfs
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 <sandeen@redhat.com>
---
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?)
diff --git a/libxfs/xfs_fs.h b/libxfs/xfs_fs.h
index d8b733a..f4858df 100644
--- a/libxfs/xfs_fs.h
+++ b/libxfs/xfs_fs.h
@@ -37,8 +37,10 @@ struct dioattr {
/*
* Structure for XFS_IOC_FSGETXATTR[A] and XFS_IOC_FSSETXATTR.
+ * If FS_IOC_FSGETXATTR is defined, the kernel is now providing
+ * this structure definition.
*/
-#ifndef HAVE_FSXATTR
+#if (!defined(HAVE_FSXATTR) && !defined(FS_IOC_FSGETXATTR))
struct fsxattr {
__u32 fsx_xflags; /* xflags field value (get/set) */
__u32 fsx_extsize; /* extsize field value (get/set)*/
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: guard fsxattr definition for newer kernels
2016-02-09 17:40 [PATCH] xfsprogs: guard fsxattr definition for newer kernels Eric Sandeen
@ 2016-02-09 19:55 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-09 19:57 ` Eric Sandeen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2016-02-09 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: xfs
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 <sandeen@redhat.com>
> ---
>
> 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....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: guard fsxattr definition for newer kernels
2016-02-09 19:55 ` Dave Chinner
@ 2016-02-09 19:57 ` Eric Sandeen
2016-02-09 21:10 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2016-02-09 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: xfs
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 <sandeen@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>
>> 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?
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: guard fsxattr definition for newer kernels
2016-02-09 19:57 ` Eric Sandeen
@ 2016-02-09 21:10 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-09 21:27 ` Eric Sandeen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2016-02-09 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: xfs
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 <sandeen@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> 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...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: guard fsxattr definition for newer kernels
2016-02-09 21:10 ` Dave Chinner
@ 2016-02-09 21:27 ` Eric Sandeen
2016-02-09 21:44 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2016-02-09 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xfs
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 <sandeen@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> 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!)
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: guard fsxattr definition for newer kernels
2016-02-09 21:27 ` Eric Sandeen
@ 2016-02-09 21:44 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-09 21:45 ` Eric Sandeen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2016-02-09 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: xfs
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 <sandeen@redhat.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: guard fsxattr definition for newer kernels
2016-02-09 21:44 ` Dave Chinner
@ 2016-02-09 21:45 ` Eric Sandeen
2016-02-09 22:37 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2016-02-09 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: xfs
On 2/9/16 3:44 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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 <sandeen@redhat.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
Right, but I'm talking about protecting older, existing versions of
xfsprogs headers which use HAVE_FSXATTR as the guard.
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: guard fsxattr definition for newer kernels
2016-02-09 21:45 ` Eric Sandeen
@ 2016-02-09 22:37 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2016-02-09 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: xfs
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 03:45:50PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
>
> On 2/9/16 3:44 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > 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 <sandeen@redhat.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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.
>
> Right, but I'm talking about protecting older, existing versions of
> xfsprogs headers which use HAVE_FSXATTR as the guard.
Nothing we can really do about that. There's no way we can get
random unused defines into general linux uapi header files.
If a distro updates their kernel to 4.5 and hence introduces this
general definition, then they also be upgrading xfsprogs to match.
If a user has upgraded their kernel and then tries to build xfsprogs
from source, then they are also going to need to update xfsprogs...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-02-09 22:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-02-09 17:40 [PATCH] xfsprogs: guard fsxattr definition for newer kernels Eric Sandeen
2016-02-09 19:55 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-09 19:57 ` Eric Sandeen
2016-02-09 21:10 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-09 21:27 ` Eric Sandeen
2016-02-09 21:44 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-09 21:45 ` Eric Sandeen
2016-02-09 22:37 ` Dave Chinner
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.