| To: | nscott@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] (and bad attr2 bug) - pack xfs_sb_t for 64-bit arches |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:32:41 -0600 |
| Cc: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1163991628.4695.169.camel@edge> |
| References: | <455CB54F.8080901@xxxxxxxxxxx> <BB70F203E29C2D37A2F727C8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061117023946.GN11034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CEB981736A0E8C7DF9ABD7C8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061117055521.GS11034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <52841.10.0.0.2.1163745285.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1163746343.4695.152.camel@edge> <48064.10.0.0.2.1163776850.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1163977907.4695.157.camel@edge> <45610761.50009@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1163991628.4695.169.camel@edge> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313) |
Nathan Scott wrote: On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 19:39 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:...but it can't just be properly padded in the kernel and leave it at that, can it?I think it can.If so won't attr2 filesystems on x86_64 suddenly start appearing to be attr2? ugh typo... "as attr1" I meant... What problem do you see resulting from that though? is an attr2 filesystem mounted as attr1 safe? -Eric |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] (and bad attr2 bug) - pack xfs_sb_t for 64-bit arches, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] (and bad attr2 bug) - pack xfs_sb_t for 64-bit arches, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] (and bad attr2 bug) - pack xfs_sb_t for 64-bit arches, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] (and bad attr2 bug) - pack xfs_sb_t for 64-bit arches, Nathan Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |