From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A28C7CA0 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 10:29:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F068E304048 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 08:29:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id q7CHQ2Hp2cBGxQ4n (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 08:28:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 08:28:58 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] xfs: pad xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote to avoid tripping on m68k Message-ID: <20160307162858.GE19784@infradead.org> References: <1457300990-18300-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1457300990-18300-7-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1457300990-18300-7-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 08:49:50AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: "Darrick J. Wong" > > Pad the xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote so that we don't trip the structure > size checker on m68k. > > [dchinner: add comment, XFS_ATTR_LEAF_NAME_BYTES constant and make sure > xfs_attr_leaf_entsize_remote() does the right thing. ] I think using a small fixed size array as a variable sized array is not a good idea, especially with increasinly "smart" optimizing compilers. I'd rather take this structure out the size checking, and then move it to a C99 VLA instead of the size 1 hack in the long run. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs