On Sunday 01 February 2009, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > The structures have been defined exactly like that in XFS (and ocfs2) > > before, and there are similar cases in other ioctls handlers. > > > > If anyone feels like changing this in some way feel free to wade through > > the endless discussions about the pros and cons for it, but I think > > doing it in context of this patch is not helpful. > > OK so ia64 gcc is broken in regard to __attribute__((packed(1))), > and it should not be used. No, the compiler is correct, it has to generate more complex code if it cannot assume that data is naturally aligned and the architecture does not support unaligned loads. If you don't understand this, please at least read the list archives about the last five times this came up before claiming that the compiler is broken. > But clearly the programmer, Like in this patch exactly, should spell > out the hole created by padding and spell that hole out and call it > __Padding. The porgrammer thought about it, identified there is an hole, > please don't drop this information on the floor. Put it in the code so I > don't have to break my head on it. Again, you are missing the point. The patch has to leave out the padding and whatnot because the idea of the patch is to provide a backwards-compatible API for programs written against the legacy XFS API. The original definition of the interface was flawed, but unless you can travel back in time to complain about this in the initial submission of the XFS file system, you should not blame the entirely correct patch now. Arnd <>< -- 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
