From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext2: Don't export ext2_mask_flags() to user space Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:28:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20120322162825.GA4028@thunk.org> References: <1332366608-2695-1-git-send-email-thierry.reding@avionic-design.de> <20120321222357.GB24330@quack.suse.cz> <20120321231651.GC32041@thunk.org> <20120322055354.GA3942@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> <1332396053.3058.2.camel@koala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thierry Reding , Jan Kara , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org To: Artem Bityutskiy Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:36692 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752836Ab2CVQ2g (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:28:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1332396053.3058.2.camel@koala> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 08:00:41AM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 06:53 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > What's the recommended fix for packages that cannot or will not use > > libext2fs, like busybox? Copy the required parts into a private header > > and use that instead? > > The normal way is to just keep a private copy of the whole header file. > Because the on-disk format stays compatible, those programs do not have > to update the header very often - only rarely if they want to support > some new feature. Even if they're not iwlling to use libext2fs (for space reasons, I would assume? It can't be because of license compatibility issues since they are both GPLv2), they could just simply grab the ext2_fs.h from e2fsprogs. That has all of the file system definitions for ext2, ext3, and ext4. Regards, - Ted