On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Andi Drebes wrote: > > Perhaps I'm missing somehting, but I think for cramfs, unfortunately, > there has to be this statement. The bitfields in the cramfs_inode structure > cause some problems. I agree that bitfields can be painful, but they should likely be just rewritten to be accesses using actual masks and shifts. The thing is, bitfields aren't actually endianness safe *anyway*, in that a compiler may end up using a *different* bit order than the byte order. So you cannot really use bitfields reliably on things like that (although Linux has a notion of a "__[BIG|LITTLE]_ENDIAN_BITFIELD", if you really want to). Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
