On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Andi Drebes wrote:
>
> Perhaps I'm missing somehting, but I think for cramfs, unfortunately,
> there has to be this statement. The bitfields in the cramfs_inode structure
> cause some problems.
I agree that bitfields can be painful, but they should likely be just
rewritten to be accesses using actual masks and shifts. The thing is,
bitfields aren't actually endianness safe *anyway*, in that a compiler may
end up using a *different* bit order than the byte order. So you cannot
really use bitfields reliably on things like that (although Linux has a
notion of a "__[BIG|LITTLE]_ENDIAN_BITFIELD", if you really want to).
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
