On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 08:28:58AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. I don't have the time right now to do this, so I'm just going to drop it - I'd guess the overlap between m68k and XFS users is so close to zero that it just doesn't matter. I'll just drop this patch for now. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
