On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 07:58:02PM +0000, Thomas Graichen wrote:
> > Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> Thomas Graichen <graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > In theory this should be true - it is always possible there is a glitch
> > > lurking out there somewhere. One issue might be how a specific
> > > architecture
> > > lays out a structure in memory. We reply on the compiler to generate the
> > > correct layout for on disk structures. For example, if you run
> >
> > > # gdb modules/xfs.o
> >
> > > you can do things like
> >
> > > (gdb) print sizeof(xfs_sb_t)
> > > $1 = 200
> >
> > > This and other on disk structures need to come out the same size on
> > > the ppc for things to work.
> >
> > this one is the same for x86 and ppc - can you just write down the
> > names of some other structures of interest - so that i may compare
> > their sizes ?
>
> This looks like a very boring exercise. From a quick look at
> config/rs6000/rs6000.h and config/i386/i386.h in gcc source the structure
> alignment rules of PPC and i386 are the same. For types XFS will hopefully
> only use its own well defined types. So I would just try and only
> complain when it breaks.
>
yes - maybe you are right - but something is broken on the ppc and i
am not shure that there are even compiler or other kernel bugs like
the "kernel can't shift > 32" thing around ... but maybe this is
something to try later ...
t
--
thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
technical director innominate AG
clustering & security networking people
tel: +49.30.308806-13 fax: -77 http://innominate.de
|