Add xattr definitions for power/s390x

[tonistiigi]

@estesp

Signed-off-by: Tonis Tiigi tonistiigi@gmail.com

[stevvooe]

LGTM

@dmcgowan PTAL

[estesp]

ping @tophj-ibm ; do you want do a quick look at this? Looks correct to me and is generated from the Go implementations, so I assume correct.

[tophj-ibm]

Thanks @estesp and @tonistiigi !!

I just want to reiterate #63 in that the syscall in general isn't the greatest for a lot of reasons and should be switched to /x/sys ASAP. This is especially true for non-x86 architectures where a lot of calls haven't been well tested, and if an issue arrises it often takes an entire release cycle to get in. /rant 😄

Having said that, I don't know of any issues with xattr, and I did check all of these calls against /x/sys just in case and these look fine to me.

[estesp]

LGTM. This improves support for now with understanding that future state would be to consider x/sys upstream package use per discussion in existing issues.

[dmcgowan]

LGTM

[justincormack]

@tophj-ibm the only constants here are the actual syscall numbers which are less likely to be wrong. But we could consider other ways of doing this.