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 97BCC7CA0 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:34:52 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F12AC002 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:34:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id fI8T4cnVv3onImjf (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 09:34:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:34:43 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] xfs: pad xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote to avoid tripping on m68k Message-ID: <20160308173443.GA21965@infradead.org> 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: Dave Chinner , darrick.wong@oracle.com Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com So I looked into this, and it seems we really don't care about the size - xfs_attr_leaf_entsize_remote pad it to the next multiple of 4 anyway. So I think we really should simply remove the size check here. Assuming all architectures pad up a structure that isn't word aligned the same way just isn't a sensible assumption. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs