From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E6CC433ED for ; Tue, 4 May 2021 15:19:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E27F613C4 for ; Tue, 4 May 2021 15:19:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230293AbhEDPTy (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 May 2021 11:19:54 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:56226 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230254AbhEDPTx (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 May 2021 11:19:53 -0400 Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-72-74-133-215.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [72.74.133.215]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 144FIqrY015598 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 4 May 2021 11:18:52 -0400 Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id F04D415C3C43; Tue, 4 May 2021 11:18:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 11:18:51 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Andreas Dilger Cc: Ext4 Developers List , harshads@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsck: fix portability problems caused by unaligned accesses Message-ID: References: <20210504031024.3888676-1-tytso@mit.edu> <8E9C71E8-FE5F-4CB8-BA62-8D8895DCA92A@dilger.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8E9C71E8-FE5F-4CB8-BA62-8D8895DCA92A@dilger.ca> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 12:29:21AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > @@ -344,10 +361,10 @@ static int ext4_fc_replay_scan(journal_t *j, struct buffer_head *bh, > > offsetof(struct ext4_fc_tail, > > fc_crc)); > > jbd_debug(1, "tail tid %d, expected %d\n", > > - le32_to_cpu(tail->fc_tid), > > + get_le32(&tail->fc_tid), > > expected_tid); > > - if (le32_to_cpu(tail->fc_tid) == expected_tid && > > - le32_to_cpu(tail->fc_crc) == state->fc_crc) { > > + if (get_le32(&tail->fc_tid) == expected_tid && > > + get_le32(&tail->fc_crc) == state->fc_crc) { > > (style) better to align continued line after '(' on previous line? That way > it can be distinguished from the next (body) line more easily Thanks, I fixed up the whitespace style issues (which were in the original code, but while we're modifying these lines, might as well fix them up). - Ted