From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:19:50 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] Allow usage of header. In-Reply-To: <1475063587-24552-1-git-send-email-dejan.jovicevic@rt-rk.com> References: <1475063587-24552-1-git-send-email-dejan.jovicevic@rt-rk.com> Message-ID: <20161003121950.GC7583@rei.suse.cz> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > is nowdays much more common than . Man > pages also list as needed header for syscalls getxattr, > setxattr, lgetxattr, llistxattr and removexattr. Well it's not about being common, these headers are part of different libraries. The sys/xattr.h is glibc one while the attr/xattr.h is part of attr library[1]. [1] https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/attr And the only difference between these two headers is that the glibc one does not define ENOATTR. > Currently, related ltp tests are disabled if is not > found during configuration process. This patch allows compilation > if is not present, but is present. If > is not present, configuration and compilation will > remain unchanged. Hmm, I wonder why we don't default to the glibc header since it's available since glibc 2.3.4 (that is more than ten years old). And since we do not actually use -llibattr we link agains the glibc anyway. So I guess that the current code is buggy and that we should use the glibc header instead. So what about to switing to sys/xattr.h instead of cluttering the code with more ifdefs? -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz