From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:23:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:22:28 -0500 Received: from mons.uio.no ([129.240.130.14]:55940 "EHLO mons.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:22:12 -0500 To: Russell King Cc: Manfred Spraul , Andrea Arcangeli , Hubert Mantel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Alan Cox Subject: Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.19pre7 In-Reply-To: <20010110013755.D13955@suse.de> <200101100654.f0A6sjJ02453@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20010110163158.F19503@athlon.random> <3A5DDD09.C8C70D36@colorfullife.com> <14941.61668.697523.866481@charged.uio.no> From: Trond Myklebust Date: 11 Jan 2001 19:22:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: Trond Myklebust's message of "Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:44:04 +0100 (CET)" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/XEmacs 21.1 - "Channel Islands" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> " " == Trond Myklebust writes: > - if (file->f_handle.fh_dcookie == fh->fh_dcookie && > - !memcmp(&file->f_handle, fh, sizeof(*fh))) > + if (file->f_handle.fh_dcookie == fh.fh_dcookie && > + !memcmp(&file->f_handle, &fh, sizeof(fh))) > goto found; Come to think of it, this line looks pretty insane. Why on earth are we testing fh_dcookie twice? I suspect that just the elimination of the redundant comparison in the above line would eliminate Russell's problem entirely, given that it's the only place in the entire routine where we actually reference fh->fh_base.fb_dentry. In all other cases, we're referencing ordinary integers. Are there any alignment requirements on them? Cheers, Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/