From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 23 Jul 2007 01:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.210]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l6N8jmbm021200 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 01:45:49 -0700 Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:45:51 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] superblock endianess annotations Message-ID: <20070723084551.GB1003@lst.de> References: <20070720163303.GB6902@lst.de> <20070723002432.GL31489@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070723002432.GL31489@sgi.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:24:32AM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > +} xfs_dsb_t; > > Should this be packed so we don't reintroduce have the problem we currently > do with 32-vs-64-bit alignment of the last field(s) in the structure? There's no packing for the xfs_sb_t, so there's none in xfs_dsb_t aswell. If you introduce packing for xfs_sb_t make sure to patch xfs_dsb_t aswell. Should we change names to xfs_sb_t for the ondisk one an xfs_icsb_t here aswell? That would be a quite large change as there are a lot more incore instances of the superblock than ondisk.