On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Ian Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > Ian Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +/* autofs v5 common packet struct */
> > > > +struct autofs_v5_packet {
> > > > + struct autofs_packet_hdr hdr;
> > > > + autofs_wqt_t wait_queue_token;
> > > > + __u32 dev;
> > > > + __u64 ino;
> > > > + uid_t uid;
> > > > + gid_t gid;
> > > > + pid_t pid;
> > > > + pid_t tgid;
> > > > + int len;
> > > > + char name[NAME_MAX+1];
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > Is this known to work with 32-bit userspace on 64-bit kernels?
> > >
> > > In particular, perhaps the ?id_t's should become a type of known size and
> > > alignment (u32 or u64)?
> > >
> >
> > Yes. I take your point.
> >
> > I used this for some time on my Ultra 2, which has this type of arch,
> > without problem. I increased the ino field from 32 to 64 bits since that
> > time and haven't since tested it.
> >
> > I'm happy to change them to 64 bit if you believe it will avoid potential
> > problems?
> >
>
> This stuff always makes my head spin, but certainly using u64 throughout
> would be the safest approach.
>
OK. I'll change it, test it tomorrow and post the resulting patch.
Ian
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
