From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BECBE7CA0 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 21:56:57 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A242AC001 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 19:56:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 0t8sNd8ZYDOYF7d0 for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 19:56:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 14:56:48 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] xfs: pad xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote to avoid tripping on m68k Message-ID: <20160308035648.GV30721@dastard> References: <1457300990-18300-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1457300990-18300-7-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20160307162858.GE19784@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160307162858.GE19784@infradead.org> 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 08:28:58AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. I don't have the time right now to do this, so I'm just going to drop it - I'd guess the overlap between m68k and XFS users is so close to zero that it just doesn't matter. I'll just drop this patch for now. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs