From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2839D29DF5 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:27:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192148F8064 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:27:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id N1eENqGcmofQ739P for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:27:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from liberator.sandeen.net (liberator.sandeen.net [10.0.0.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sandeen.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B76263C5B52 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:27:19 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: guard fsxattr definition for newer kernels References: <56BA24A9.4090403@redhat.com> <20160209195502.GR27429@dastard> <56BA4495.9060304@redhat.com> <20160209211010.GA14668@dastard> From: Eric Sandeen Message-ID: <56BA59B6.3030803@sandeen.net> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:27:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160209211010.GA14668@dastard> 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: xfs@oss.sgi.com 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!) -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs