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@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> 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!) -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
