On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 03:45:50PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > 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@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!) > > > > 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. Nothing we can really do about that. There's no way we can get random unused defines into general linux uapi header files. If a distro updates their kernel to 4.5 and hence introduces this general definition, then they also be upgrading xfsprogs to match. If a user has upgraded their kernel and then tries to build xfsprogs from source, then they are also going to need to update xfsprogs... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
