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
|