On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 10:38:22PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 05:43 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > In most places we can simply pass around and use the struct xfs_dir2_data_hdr, > > which is the first and most important member of struct xfs_dir2_data instead > > of the full structure. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > In xfs_dir2_data_freescan() you get the address of the > dir2_data_t by forcibly casting the address of the > header to that type. We all know that's fine, but > it's an unsavory practice. Why don't you pass the > full dir2_data_t in that case where it's needed? > Are you simply trying to avoid passing *any* pointers > to variable-sized types? I'm restricting the dir2_data_t scope to where we needed it, to kill it (and thus the cast) off entirely in the next patch. > (Update: I think you eliminate that line in the next > patch anyway...) Exactly! _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
