From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0DA8C4338F for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 08:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B177760EAF for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 08:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234264AbhGXHnf (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jul 2021 03:43:35 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48942 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234216AbhGXHnd (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jul 2021 03:43:33 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x102f.google.com (mail-pj1-x102f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F925C061575 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 01:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102f.google.com with SMTP id gv20-20020a17090b11d4b0290173b9578f1cso8237742pjb.0 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 01:24:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=SuSo5jMjwDHi3VBPZHsrYSbCN/4vcKZEN2N1GtoXa/s=; b=GUKLRmnYr13KJLTr9qJ3kOayaKWhKhjgy5BKit8yv2I57fhdvtq5kL+UfxPLYRtIj4 YdQhk7gZwEcZCqZSfkSxvjjPWB84Ew+wL5QTjMmr6+O34FZCz34cnwZMWbrnfnNgm4bu /4lfO4wFEerHfWy1FpeO13LcEpEcTU6Ot/E5r/N0nxLQpUGd+3xKTQw7Cc4yjJnOSakB x6fBbBiab1ZqUZhj7vO68xNtZWpGG6rN8s3XCSGYyV2lUsDywvbkyxPjHkYWFsyu0LbC iFnUI3QAFw1DwJ8LgeGKHLvJ32B+PxdVHLzCTMdlC6TOdH6TVcv9KmKWCnwHMCZKe6JU c7NA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=SuSo5jMjwDHi3VBPZHsrYSbCN/4vcKZEN2N1GtoXa/s=; b=fL39l1ekD3HTz2QWVYYyTkY8/Y07x0z4C29CuLZJnKe5LincqT0I6+c4HRaMsk4Czm 3AW/bPcUj2MotfLGzejoaMufnLOMjYyRssq3k8b/cEz/N+CfQlWCVyIOBjxA7fUrch0h pNzjc2cbuLxMCSi4ATfs4facrepwYOJi4oemh5u4AB1apKORawVCUXiDeHLfCNCaimV5 PNnNTMknOHXeffGQcq2reyMD1yRyA8y8TFSh/0aFWsmD+qneS+w9LJu0i45wWB9nolOD unrpfw5MVHuWuHY9TPtubJ2oyTpMWwi6OChEjqxrbM+IQWPb8PnQd+wtU7Pus8yTNHVX OWHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532KFdg7+mIxYemQ+e15klpYDqyrXqP8x10qW3N3sS9B3BClp+9u VGnqZcJUFxQerKQIjnRVBWI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzpfAoJiW/GZxiUe5STOgRpz2N4TbLBFa1dkP4zWJ2RWX5si8fWBk0KQLblhSfQEzeIDUeu+Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:c202:: with SMTP id e2mr8168623pjt.123.1627115043939; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 01:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from realwakka ([59.12.165.26]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q21sm17924235pgk.71.2021.07.24.01.24.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 24 Jul 2021 01:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 08:23:56 +0000 From: Sidong Yang To: Qu Wenruo Cc: linux-btrfs Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: cmds: Fix build for using NAME_MAX Message-ID: <20210724082356.GA68829@realwakka> References: <20210724074642.68771-1-realwakka@gmail.com> <2305182b-1e12-df9c-320c-7a7eedba860d@gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <2305182b-1e12-df9c-320c-7a7eedba860d@gmx.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 03:50:25PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2021/7/24 下午3:46, Sidong Yang wrote: > > There is some code that using NAME_MAX but it doesn't include header > > that is defined. This patch adds a line that includes linux/limits.h > > which defines NAME_MAX. > > I guess it's related to this issue? > > https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-progs/issues/386 Yeah, It seems that there is no patch for this yet. So I sent this patch. Is this too minor patch? Thanks, Sidong > > Thanks, > Qu > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sidong Yang > > --- > > cmds/filesystem-usage.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/cmds/filesystem-usage.c b/cmds/filesystem-usage.c > > index 50d8995e..2a76e29c 100644 > > --- a/cmds/filesystem-usage.c > > +++ b/cmds/filesystem-usage.c > > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ > > #include > > #include > > #include > > +#include > > > > #include "common/utils.h" > > #include "kerncompat.h" > >