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.
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
