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 C630729DF5 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:45:53 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86C7304039 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:45:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id i76CEnWEiCaWvn8e for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:45:51 -0800 (PST) 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> <56BA59B6.3030803@sandeen.net> <20160209214433.GD14668@dastard> From: Eric Sandeen Message-ID: <56BA5E0E.7030209@sandeen.net> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:45:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160209214433.GD14668@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: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com 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 >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> 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