From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:33:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id kAK3XYaG031836 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:33:35 -0800 Message-ID: <456121D9.9010507@sandeen.net> Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:32:41 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] (and bad attr2 bug) - pack xfs_sb_t for 64-bit arches References: <455CB54F.8080901@sandeen.net> <20061117023946.GN11034@melbourne.sgi.com> <20061117055521.GS11034@melbourne.sgi.com> <52841.10.0.0.2.1163745285.squirrel@sandeen.net> <1163746343.4695.152.camel@edge> <48064.10.0.0.2.1163776850.squirrel@sandeen.net> <1163977907.4695.157.camel@edge> <45610761.50009@sandeen.net> <1163991628.4695.169.camel@edge> In-Reply-To: <1163991628.4695.169.camel@edge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: nscott@aconex.com Cc: David Chinner , Timothy Shimmin , xfs@oss.sgi.com Nathan Scott wrote: > On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 19:39 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> ... >> but it can't just be properly padded in the kernel and leave it at that, >> can it? > > I think it can. > >> If so won't attr2 filesystems on x86_64 suddenly start >> appearing to be attr2? ugh typo... "as attr1" I meant... > What problem do you see resulting from that though? is an attr2 filesystem mounted as attr1 safe? -Eric