From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o8GGll8W003794 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:47:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:48:35 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.35.4: Fixed simple warning (array subscript is above array bounds) Message-ID: <20100916164835.GA19511@infradead.org> References: <388312.90213.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <1284655322.2153.22.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1284655322.2153.22.camel@doink> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Alex Elder Cc: Poyo VL , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:42:02AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > Additionally, the alignment of the overall structure > will be 64 bits because of hte inumber field. Expanding > the name field by another byte will not change that. > > So I think this change is OK. Can anyone else > back me up? We do sizeof requests on a few of these structures, not sure if it includes this one. I have a patchset to dust off that gets rid of all the structures that aren't actually physically on disk. I'll try to dust if off and submit it - this was a preparation for the CRC enablement of the directory structures. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs