On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 03:44:46PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 5/18/16 11:37 AM, Jeffrey Bastian wrote: > > There was a discussion a few months ago about adding a guard for the > > fsxattr struct [0] because it's defined in two places, the Linux kernel > > header linux/fs.h [1] and xfsprogs header xfs/linux.h [2]. > > > xfs/linux.h has a FS_IOC_FSGETXATTR guard around the struct fsxattr > > definition, but this only works if linux/fs.h is included *before* > > xfs/linux.h (or xfs/xfs.h). If you include linux/fs.h after, then you > > get a struct redefinition error. > > > > Is it a requirement that linux/fs.h is included first? If so, then > > there is a bug in xfstests because it includes them in the wrong order > > [3] and fails to build. If there is not an order requirement, then both > > header files should probably have a HAVE_FSXATTR guard around the struct > > definition. > > It seems best to me to include fs.h first. That may not be written in > stone, but it's at least common practice. > > Having the same definition in both places, and guards going both ways, > seems a little odd though. > > Maybe xfsprogs' include/linux.h should just directly include > the kernel's linux/fs.h at the top - would that make sense? That's the easiest solution - stops people wasting even more time on this. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
