Re: [PATCH 05/11] xfsprogs: missing and dummy calls for OS X support

From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Jan Tulak <jtulak@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] xfsprogs: missing and dummy calls for OS X support
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 02:19:36 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150819091936.GA12804@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACj3i71T77Hov5PyAfgGGmh3Ga4Q8Rk67sZ7yxVWtOYYUaEQYQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:14:42AM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote:
> I proposed dropping some tools earlier, but there was a valid point about
> the possibility to break something when not even trying to compile it.
> i.e. with the XATTR_ -> XFS_XATTR mentioned in the first reply to this patch
> (which I already moved to a separate patch), it is necessary to add
> 
> #include "xfs/xfs_arch.h"
> #include "xfs/xfs_format.h"
> 
> into libhandle/handle.c. But

I think we'll need another define for libhandle - it's at least
in theory supposed to be a somewhat generic library.  In fact using
the existing XATTR_ values sort of makes sense for libattr, so I'd
say define a LIBHANDE_ version as well.

> So I think
> ??? ???
> it is better to have "bad dummy stuff" than not compile it
> at all

In general yes, for fsr I don't think so.  One is the pure amount
of broken stubs it would need, the second is that fsr is the only
program that requires a _mounted_ XFS file system anyway.  Most other
programs just use the on disk format, or in case of xfs_io are useful
for any file system.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs