s390/s390-64 missing xattr exports

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:16:13AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > #include <errno.h>
> > #ifndef ENOATTR
> > # define ENOATTR ENODATA        /* No such attribute */
> > #endif
> 
> Arguably this is the wrong place; ENOATTR should be defined in <errno.h>.

Yes.

> would prefer a separate error number instead of reusing ENODATA, but several 
> people have been running against walls, and we failed to get ENOATTR accepted 
> in the kernel. (There was no feedback at all.)

What about just submitting a patch.. ;)

> > , it might go into <sys/xattr.h>.
> > Andreas, or what was the proper place for this one?
> 
> We were so far using <attr/xattr.h>; that's also what the man pages document. 
> I'm not sure if moving it to <sys/xattr.h> is a good idea:

I should certainly _not_ be <attr/xattr.h>. Rationale:

(1)	<attr/xattr.h> is used by the libattr package, this is libc
(2)	software using <attr/xattr.h> links against libattr, <xattr.h>
	or <sys/xattr.h> using software doesn't (at least doesn't have to)
(3)	having an own subdirectory under /usr/include for just one libc
	header is silly, sharing that with one not-libc header (the
	IRIX-compatible <attr/attributes.h> is even more silly

>   (-) it's not a POSIX/etc. standard header, and not portable in any way. We 
> might get name clashes later.

POSIX could aswell use the <attr/*.h> namespace - glibc has feature
macros to select standards..

>   (-) it breaks existing sources. The number of utilities using it is still 
> reasonably small, though.

They have to be changed to not link against libattr anyway.

>   (+) if we move it, we won't run into conflicts with the attr-devel package.
>   (+) the Irix EA header is <sys/attributes.h>, so it's "closer" to Irix.

IRIX API is different anyway.