On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:59:14AM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote:
> WILL CHANGE THE COMMIT MESSAGE.
OK?
> All right, I make the renaming with define - though I'm not sure
> that with the ifdef for OS X and SIZE_MAX moved to a standalone patch
> we need it - shouldn't be this change rather dropped?
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/xfs.h | 2 ++
> libhandle/handle.c | 4 ++--
> libhandle/jdm.c | 4 ++--
> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/xfs.h b/include/xfs.h
> index bc94068..8ee0106 100644
> --- a/include/xfs.h
> +++ b/include/xfs.h
> @@ -53,6 +53,8 @@
> # define ASSERT(EX) ((void) 0)
> #endif
>
> +#define XFS_XATTR_LIST_MAX XATTR_LIST_MAX
> +
This does not belong here - it is a limit that applies to the ioctl
API and so must be the same in userspace and the kernel. Such
definitions belong in libxfs/xfs_fs.h, and should respect local OS
limits if defined. e.g. something like:
#ifdef XATTR_LIST_MAX
#define XFS_XATTR_LIST_MAX XATTR_LIST_MAX
#else
#define XFS_XATTR_LIST_MAX 65536
#endif
OK, that makes sense.
Will work on both the kernel and userspace side. This will also need
a kernel side patch...
Now, this is something where I may need a bit help/confirmation, I guess.
What I suppose I should do is:
1) Clone linux-xfs (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dgc/linux-xfs.git)
2) Edit linux-xfs/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_fs.h and add the same change there
3) Send it to this mailing list as usual, with "[PATCH] xfs: ..."
(The same goes for the other patch with the kernel need too.)
Is it all right? Correct repository URL? :-)
Thanks,
Jan
_______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
