Hi Chris,
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:57:19 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> Btrfs ioctls for:
>
> subvolume and snapshot creation
> defragmentation
> Resizing
> Device add/remove
> Single file cloning (COW copies)
> Balancing extents across drives (restriping)
<snip>
> +
> +#define BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC 0x94
> +#define BTRFS_VOL_NAME_MAX 255
> +#define BTRFS_PATH_NAME_MAX 3072
> +
> +struct btrfs_ioctl_vol_args {
> + __s64 fd;
> + char name[BTRFS_PATH_NAME_MAX + 1];
> +};
> +
> +#define BTRFS_IOC_SNAP_CREATE _IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 1, \
> + struct btrfs_ioctl_vol_args)
> +#define BTRFS_IOC_DEFRAG _IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 2, \
> + struct btrfs_ioctl_vol_args)
> +#define BTRFS_IOC_RESIZE _IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 3, \
> + struct btrfs_ioctl_vol_args)
> +#define BTRFS_IOC_SCAN_DEV _IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 4, \
> + struct btrfs_ioctl_vol_args)
The size of btrfs_ioctl_vol_args seems to depend on architectures.
For example, the size was 3084 bytes on a x86-32 machine, but was 3088
bytes on a x86-64 machine.
Doesn't it cause mismatch of IOC values between the kernel and
userland in some environments ?
Regards,
Ryusuke Konishi
--
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
