From nobody Thu Apr 25 06:29:14 2024 Delivered-To: importer@patchew.org Received-SPF: pass (zoho.com: domain of redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.183.28; envelope-from=libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com; helo=mx1.redhat.com; Authentication-Results: mx.zohomail.com; spf=pass (zoho.com: domain of redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com; dmarc=pass(p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1531148416047139.7736073067083; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0763230E2655; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:00:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.20]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CDA360F93; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:00:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B129D18037ED; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:00:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w69F06gT008064 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 11:00:06 -0400 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id 052102026D6B; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:00:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from moe.brq.redhat.com (unknown [10.43.2.192]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8ED2026D65 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:00:05 +0000 (UTC) From: Michal Privoznik To: libvir-list@redhat.com Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:59:34 +0200 Message-Id: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.4 X-loop: libvir-list@redhat.com Subject: [libvirt] [PATCH] storage_util: Prefer generic FICLONE over btrfs/xfs defines X-BeenThere: libvir-list@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk List-Id: Development discussions about the libvirt library & tools List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.40]); Mon, 09 Jul 2018 15:00:14 +0000 (UTC) X-ZohoMail: RSF_0 Z_629925259 SPT_0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" After my change to the original patch that resulted in commit 8ed874b39b3 it was brought to my attention that all three defines are the same: FICLONE =3D BTRFS_IOC_CLONE =3D XFS_IOC_CLONE. Therefore we should prefer generic FICLONE over 'specific' defines for btrfs/xfs. Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik Reviewed-by: Andrea Bolognani --- src/storage/storage_util.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/storage/storage_util.c b/src/storage/storage_util.c index da99043e0a..715d5c2f88 100644 --- a/src/storage/storage_util.c +++ b/src/storage/storage_util.c @@ -46,14 +46,14 @@ # include #endif =20 -#if HAVE_LINUX_BTRFS_H +#ifdef FICLONE +# define REFLINK_IOC_CLONE FICLONE +#elif HAVE_LINUX_BTRFS_H # include # define REFLINK_IOC_CLONE BTRFS_IOC_CLONE #elif HAVE_XFS_XFS_H # include # define REFLINK_IOC_CLONE XFS_IOC_CLONE -#elif defined(FICLONE) -# define REFLINK_IOC_CLONE FICLONE #endif =20 #include "datatypes.h" --=20 2.16.4 -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list