xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 05/11] xfsprogs: missing and dummy calls for OS X support

To: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] xfsprogs: missing and dummy calls for OS X support
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 02:19:36 -0700
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CACj3i71T77Hov5PyAfgGGmh3Ga4Q8Rk67sZ7yxVWtOYYUaEQYQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1439828606-7886-1-git-send-email-jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> <1439828606-7886-6-git-send-email-jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150818214557.GC3902@dastard> <20150819080940.GA13130@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CACj3i71T77Hov5PyAfgGGmh3Ga4Q8Rk67sZ7yxVWtOYYUaEQYQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:14:42AM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote:
> I proposed dropping some tools earlier, but there was a valid point about
> the possibility to break something when not even trying to compile it.
> i.e. with the XATTR_ -> XFS_XATTR mentioned in the first reply to this patch
> (which I already moved to a separate patch), it is necessary to add
> 
> #include "xfs/xfs_arch.h"
> #include "xfs/xfs_format.h"
> 
> into libhandle/handle.c. But

I think we'll need another define for libhandle - it's at least
in theory supposed to be a somewhat generic library.  In fact using
the existing XATTR_ values sort of makes sense for libattr, so I'd
say define a LIBHANDE_ version as well.

> So I think
> ??? ???
> it is better to have "bad dummy stuff" than not compile it
> at all

In general yes, for fsr I don't think so.  One is the pure amount
of broken stubs it would need, the second is that fsr is the only
program that requires a _mounted_ XFS file system anyway.  Most other
programs just use the on disk format, or in case of xfs_io are useful
for any file system.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>