On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 10:38:52AM +0200, Felix Janda wrote: > Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 03:09:05PM +0200, Felix Janda wrote: > > > Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 10:02:41AM +0200, Felix Janda wrote: > > > > > Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 08:54:10AM +0200, Felix Janda wrote: > > > > > > > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Felix Janda wrote: > > > > > > > > > int64_t is guaranteed to have the correct size and signedness and is > > > > > > > > > always avaible because linux.h has a <inttypes.h> include. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes compilation error "unkown type name 'off64_t'" on linux when the > > > > > > > > > public header <xfs.h> is included without _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE or > > > > > > > > > _GNU_SOURCE defined. This bug was introduced in commit > > > > > > > > > cb898f157f8410a03cf5f3400baa1df9e5eecd33. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would much prefer to just define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE in linux.h.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion, but that does not work if the system header > > > > > > > defining (or not) off64_t is included before the xfs headers. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which, to me, is a build bug in whatever code is including the xfs > > > > > > headers. Isn't it the responsibility of the build environment to > > > > > > ensure the dependencies of the libraries being used are correctly > > > > > > met? > > > > > > > > > > Every program using the xfs header is supposed to know that (only on > > > > > linux) since commit cb898f157f8410a03cf5f3400baa1df9e5eecd33 it is > > > > > necessary to define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE or _GNU_SOURCE? > > > > > > > > Which, I'd say, most already do, because anything trying to use XFS > > > > ioctls needs to be 64 bit offset clean, even on 32 bit systems. I > > > > don't see any problem with requiring it when including a header > > > > that exposes ioctl interfaces with 64 bit file size/offset fields > > > > in them.... > > > > > > The easiest way to be 64bit clean is to use _FILEOFFSET_BITS=64. Then > > > off_t is 64bit on all architectures and it is impossible to use 32bit > > > interfaces. However the type off64_t will still not be defined... > > > > > > (On the other hand, when just using _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE it is still > > > easy to mix 32 and 64bit interfaces.) > > > > Which, with library code, we are likely to see applications using. > > > > If you want to clean this up, then remove the dependence on > > _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE in the entire xfsprogs code base (e.g. it uses > > lseek64 everywhere which requires off64_t to be defined) and instead > > make it dependent on _FILEOFFSET_BITS=64. Then you can get rid of > > all the uses of off64_t completely, and we can break the build if > > _FILEOFFSET_BITS != 64 on inclusion of xfs.h. > > Yes, I'd like to clean this up. > > But first note that you can have both _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 and > _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE. Then everything (off64_t, lseek64, ...) is > defined and everything (off_t, lseek, ...) is 64bit. > > So to clean up I would first get _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 defined and then > start "removing 64" from functions/types in any order. *Before > modifying the public headers* the sizeof(off_t)=8 check needs to > be put into xfs.h. > > Also note that there are 3 different (but equivalent) off_t types > currently used in the code base: off64_t, loff_t and xfs_off_t. > Should these be converted to xfs_off_t or off_t? Not that simple. loff_t has to remain for the copy_file_range() syscall in xfs_io. That syscall requires _GNU_SOURCE and loff_t to be defined from the system headers, so it can't really go away. xfs_off_t is an internal XFS file offset definition, used by the code in libxfs/ and shared with the kernel code, so it can't go away, either. So, essentially, the only code that should change is all the code that uses off64_t - that can use off_t as that's what all the systems that use those variables require... > Still, doing these type conversions is going to be pretty invasive > and is not unlikely to conflict with outstanding patches. Is now > a good time for this? (How about the __uint -> uint, __int -> int > conversion?) off64_t -> off_t affects very little of the new code we have outstanding. It mostly affects xfs_io, so there's little to worry about in terms of merge conflicts here. The __*int conversions are a different matter. They affect the entire code base - they are widespread through the libxfs code so we need to do a kernel code conversion first. Then we can propagate that back into the libxfs code in xfsprogs, and then the rest of xfsprogs can be done. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
