On 08/13/2013 04:22 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
Hi,
Neither me nor linux-fsdevel has been CCed on this change. Please do that
next time. Now looking into the patch in xfs mailing list archive I have
Did you mean the email or the commit header?
As far as I can see you and linux-fsdevel were CCed on this entire email
thread.
--Rich
one comment: You declare:
struct fs_quota_statv {
__s8 qs_version; /* version for future changes */
__u8 qs_pad1; /* pad for 16bit alignment */
__u16 qs_flags; /* FS_QUOTA_.* flags */
__u32 qs_incoredqs; /* number of dquots incore */
struct fs_qfilestatv qs_uquota; /* user quota information */
struct fs_qfilestatv qs_gquota; /* group quota information */
struct fs_qfilestatv qs_pquota; /* project quota information */
__s32 qs_btimelimit; /* limit for blks timer */
__s32 qs_itimelimit; /* limit for inodes timer */
__s32 qs_rtbtimelimit;/* limit for rt blks timer */
__u16 qs_bwarnlimit; /* limit for num warnings */
__u16 qs_iwarnlimit; /* limit for num warnings */
__u64 qs_pad2[8]; /* for future proofing */
};
Now do you really need qs_pad2 field? Since the structure is properly
versioned now, even its size can vary between versions, cannot it?
Otherwise the patch looks fine.
Honza
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
