On 1/22/16 3:28 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 21-01-16 22:07:20, Eric Sandeen wrote:
...
> Same comments as for XFS version apply here.
*nod*
> Furthermore:
>
>> diff --git a/fs/quota/compat.c b/fs/quota/compat.c
>> index fb1892f..80773a4 100644
>> --- a/fs/quota/compat.c
>> +++ b/fs/quota/compat.c
>> @@ -19,6 +19,19 @@ struct compat_if_dqblk {
>> compat_uint_t dqb_valid;
>> };
>>
>> +struct compat_if_nextdqblk {
>> + compat_u64 dqb_bhardlimit;
>> + compat_u64 dqb_bsoftlimit;
>> + compat_u64 dqb_curspace;
>> + compat_u64 dqb_ihardlimit;
>> + compat_u64 dqb_isoftlimit;
>> + compat_u64 dqb_curinodes;
>> + compat_u64 dqb_btime;
>> + compat_u64 dqb_itime;
>> + compat_uint_t dqb_valid;
>> + compat_uint_t dqb_id;
>> +};
>> +
>
> Is there a need for compat version of this structure? Everything is
> naturally aligned and the size is a multiple of 8 bytes. But these things
> keep surprising me... Added CC to linux-api in a hope that there's someone
> who definitely knows.
Ok, yeah, I wasn't sure. I'll take all the compat stuff out of this one,
and can do a separate patch if needed, but I bet you're right, it's probably
not. I did set up to test 32-compat calls, so I'll just test w/o this.
I'd be perfectly happy to drop it. :)
Thanks for the review, Jan.
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
