From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F057F50 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:56:24 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF9CAC004 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:56:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id n27fzuh13NvvWQo4 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:56:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:56:16 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] xfstests: Define fallocate flags locally in fsx Message-ID: <20140225215616.GA29752@infradead.org> References: <1393355728-12056-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <1393355728-12056-5-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <20140225203922.GC13647@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140225203922.GC13647@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: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Lukas Czerner , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:39:22AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > index b3c30db..331257e 100644 > > --- a/ltp/fsx.c > > +++ b/ltp/fsx.c > > @@ -35,8 +35,13 @@ > > #endif > > #ifdef FALLOCATE > > #include > > +#ifndef FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE > > +#define FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE 0x02 /* de-allocates range */ > > +#endif > > +#ifndef FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE > > +#define FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE 0x10 /* zeroes range */ > > +#endif > > #endif > > This pattern is appearing all over the place in xfstests now. I'd > suggest that this should really be handled by autoconf, > include/config.h and src/globals.h.... Can we handle this nicely using autoconf, especially in the case of O_ flags that might be different for different architectures? Either way having a single header for the various flags that might not be present in the system headers sounds like a good plan. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs