From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f68.google.com ([209.85.208.68]:33125 "EHLO mail-ed1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725824AbeJLGia (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Oct 2018 02:38:30 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f68.google.com with SMTP id l14-v6so836115edq.0 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ed1-f54.google.com (mail-ed1-f54.google.com. [209.85.208.54]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s12-v6sm8452562edd.39.2018.10.11.16.08.59 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f54.google.com with SMTP id y20-v6so9797297eds.10 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:08:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181011195859.GA114854@rodete-desktop-imager.corp.google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Brian Norris Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:08:48 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: don't include all xfs headers just for crc32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: sandeen@sandeen.net Cc: sandeen@redhat.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 3:36 PM Eric Sandeen wrote: > Thanks. At this point I think you have a better grasp of what all the > $FOO_FLAGS do than I do ;) It may be to keep things sorted > and separate, but it also seemed useful to get a giant tangle of > xfs header out of a non-xfs library file. Yep! I'm happy with this patch. If I'm bothered enough, I can still send another patch to sort out the flags further. > I'm also on the fence about whether cross-compiling the self-check > really even gains us much, given that it may be built or optimized > completely differently from the code on the target arch ... I don't have a whole lot of opinion here. Regards, Brian