On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 08:49:50AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Pad the xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote so that we don't trip the structure > size checker on m68k. > > [dchinner: add comment, XFS_ATTR_LEAF_NAME_BYTES constant and make sure > xfs_attr_leaf_entsize_remote() does the right thing. ] I think using a small fixed size array as a variable sized array is not a good idea, especially with increasinly "smart" optimizing compilers. I'd rather take this structure out the size checking, and then move it to a C99 VLA instead of the size 1 hack in the long run. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
