On Thu 27-02-20 14:12:30, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> >
> > > struct fanotify_fh_name {
> > > union {
> > > struct {
> > > u8 fh_type;
> > > u8 fh_len;
> > > u8 name_len;
> > > u32 hash;
> > > };
> > > u64 hash_len;
> > > };
> > > union {
> > > unsigned char fh[FANOTIFY_INLINE_FH_LEN];
> > > unsigned char *ext_fh;
> > > };
> > > char name[0];
> > > };
> >
> > So based on the above I wouldn't add just name hash to fanotify_fh_name at
> > this point...
> >
>
> OK. but what do you think about tying name with fh as above?
> At least name_len gets to use the hole this way.
Is saving that one byte for name_len really worth the packing? If anything,
I'd rather do the fanotity_fh padding optimization I outlined in another
email. That would save one long without any packing and the following u8
name_len would get packed tightly after the fanotify_fh by the compiler.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
