| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfsdump: don't assume getdents exists |
| From: | Kyle McMartin <kmcmarti@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:19:54 -0500 |
| Cc: | sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20131106231713.GK6188@dastard> |
| References: | <20131106213635.GC24712@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131106224844.GI6188@dastard> <20131106225620.GC29593@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131106231713.GK6188@dastard> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:17:13AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I'll try to clean it up and send a patch for that, using getdents64 > > wherever possible, and handling the fallback at runtime instead of > > making things all ifdeffy... Just wanted to get things building in the > > mean time. (Oh man the coding style there is janky...) > > I'd factor and reformat the code using the normal kernel style. :) > > And to avoid ifdef hackery and runtime fallbacks, I'd add an > autoconf macro to determine which getdents call is supported, and > then only compile in the relevant function and not have to care > about runtime fallbacks. > > But that may end up more complex and more work than you had in mind, > so feel free to ignore my suggestions ;) > Good thinking... I'll poke at it. Thanks Dave! Kyle |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfsdump: don't assume getdents exists, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Mail Box Quota Warning!!, E-Mail Help Center |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfsdump: don't assume getdents exists, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfsdump: don't assume getdents exists, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |