| To: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [patch 1/3] Fix XFS_IOC_FSGEOMETRY_V1 in compat mode |
| From: | Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 30 May 2007 23:48:53 +0200 |
| Cc: | Michal Marek <mmarek@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20070530170530.GA4197@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20070530125954.706423971@xxxxxxx> <20070530143043.216024061@xxxxxxx> <20070530170530.GA4197@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | KMail/1.9.6 |
On Wednesday 30 May 2007, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:59:55PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
>
> > +typedef struct xfs_fsop_geom_v132 {
>
> wouldn't xfs_fsop_geom_v1_32
> ^
>
> > + __u32 blocksize; /* filesystem (data) block size */
>
> [...]
>
> > + __u32 dirblocksize; /* directory block size, bytes */
> > +} __attribute__((packed)) xfs_fsop_geom_v132_t;
>
> and xfs_fsop_geom_v1_32_t
> ^
>
> read better there?
Actually, the current convention would be struct compat_xfs_fsop_geom_v1
and compat_xfs_fsop_geom_v1_t.
Arnd <><
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [patch 1/3] Fix XFS_IOC_FSGEOMETRY_V1 in compat mode, Chris Wedgwood |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Reducing memory requirements for high extent xfs files, David Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [patch 1/3] Fix XFS_IOC_FSGEOMETRY_V1 in compat mode, Chris Wedgwood |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [patch 1/3] Fix XFS_IOC_FSGEOMETRY_V1 in compat mode, Michal Marek |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |