On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 03:28:12 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > @@ -581,8 +581,8 @@ static void gen_boot_verifier(nfs4_verifier *verifier, struct net *net) > > __be32 verf[2]; > > struct nfsd_net *nn = net_generic(net, nfsd_net_id); > > > > - verf[0] = (__be32)nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_sec; > > - verf[1] = (__be32)nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_usec; > > + verf[0] = (__force __be32)nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_sec; > > + verf[1] = (__force __be32)nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_usec; > > memcpy(verifier->data, verf, sizeof(verifier->data)); > > Given that the verifier should be opaque is there any reason not to > simple do the byte swap here? If not I think the rule that no __force > cast should be without a comment applies here. > The only real reason would be efficiency. Since it's opaque, doing a byte swap doesn't really buy us anything. > > - verf[0] = (__be32)get_seconds(); > > - verf[1] = (__be32)i++; > > + verf[0] = (__force __be32)get_seconds(); > > + verf[1] = (__force __be32)i++; > > memcpy(clp->cl_confirm.data, verf, > > sizeof(clp->cl_confirm.data)); > > Same here. > > In general I think one patch per issue also would better, and some > comments of what's fixed (trivial for the places adding static, not so > trivial for various __force overrides) Fair enough. I'll break this up some and resend. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
