From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: guard fsxattr definition for newer kernels
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:45:50 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56BA5E0E.7030209@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160209214433.GD14668@dastard>
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 <sandeen@redhat.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-09 21:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-09 17:40 [PATCH] xfsprogs: guard fsxattr definition for newer kernels Eric Sandeen
2016-02-09 19:55 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-09 19:57 ` Eric Sandeen
2016-02-09 21:10 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-09 21:27 ` Eric Sandeen
2016-02-09 21:44 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-09 21:45 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2016-02-09 22:37 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56BA5E0E.7030209@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox