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...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|