On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 03:25:50PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> i386 struct xfs_fsop_geom_v1 has no padding after the last member, so
> the size is different.
Looks good. Added to my qa tree...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
-
To unsubscribe
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 03:25:50PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i386 struct xfs_fsop_geom_v1 has no padding after the last member, so
the size is different.
Looks good. Added to my qa tree...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
-
To unsubscribe
i386 struct xfs_fsop_geom_v1 has no padding after the last member, so
the size is different.
Signed-off-by: Michal Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.c | 42 -
1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
---
i386 struct xfs_fsop_geom_v1 has no padding after the last member, so
the size is different.
Signed-off-by: Michal Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.c | 42 -
1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
---
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 May 2007, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:59:55PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
>>
>>> +typedef struct xfs_fsop_geom_v132 {
>> wouldn't xfs_fsop_geom_v1_32
...
>> and xfs_fsop_geom_v1_32_t
>> ^
>>
>> read better there?
>
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 30 May 2007, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:59:55PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
+typedef struct xfs_fsop_geom_v132 {
wouldn't xfs_fsop_geom_v1_32
...
and xfs_fsop_geom_v1_32_t
^
read better there?
Actually, the
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:59:55PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
> i386 struct xfs_fsop_geom_v1 has no padding after the last member, so
> the size is different.
That's a pain - it's kind of clunky having to redefine the entire
structure just pack it differently. Oh well, not much that
we can do
On Wednesday 30 May 2007, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:59:55PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
>
> > +typedef struct xfs_fsop_geom_v132 {
>
> wouldn't xfs_fsop_geom_v1_32
> ^
>
> > + __u32 blocksize; /* filesystem (data) block size
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:59:55PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
> +typedef struct xfs_fsop_geom_v132 {
wouldn't xfs_fsop_geom_v1_32
^
> + __u32 blocksize; /* filesystem (data) block size */
[...]
> + __u32 dirblocksize; /* directory
i386 struct xfs_fsop_geom_v1 has no padding after the last member, so
the size is different.
Signed-off-by: Michal Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.c | 40 +++-
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
---
On Wednesday 30 May 2007, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:59:55PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
+typedef struct xfs_fsop_geom_v132 {
wouldn't xfs_fsop_geom_v1_32
^
+ __u32 blocksize; /* filesystem (data) block size */
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:59:55PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
i386 struct xfs_fsop_geom_v1 has no padding after the last member, so
the size is different.
That's a pain - it's kind of clunky having to redefine the entire
structure just pack it differently. Oh well, not much that
we can do about
i386 struct xfs_fsop_geom_v1 has no padding after the last member, so
the size is different.
Signed-off-by: Michal Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.c | 40 +++-
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
---
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:59:55PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
+typedef struct xfs_fsop_geom_v132 {
wouldn't xfs_fsop_geom_v1_32
^
+ __u32 blocksize; /* filesystem (data) block size */
[...]
+ __u32 dirblocksize; /* directory block
14 matches
Mail list logo
