|To:||Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: BUG REPORT: XFS LOG FORWARD COMPATIBILITY PROBLEM|
|From:||Eddy Zhao <eddy.y.zhao@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:59:49 +0800|
|Cc:||Lachlan McIlroy <lmcilroy@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx|
|Dkim-signature:||v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/M1HLQUFm1t6NoC1cqmL7Mc5uNeNWHR+eLTr1SjpuG4=; b=YnsgKUyNCMhKDIG24t5rgIhI5p6csyeS8k/G/HYipwfp7nFAG69UkdgjspqIcvv3kb tzt7PwvlrYXJVTvgu1kN8s8bVc0AYVZ0dE7RvEU4r147lIVj+qzScBIBzW8T2nxnNyCz xNWJNg56FMgghJC/jJI+EacsLNDJmry6rz3DQ=|
|Domainkey-signature:||a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=UD2IEs6sXUj+HfnFGLoQNI/zWKyzYQORwjImAOxDCsrEXgH7hYkB0jnRZ6XpUQGAM5 18hdo2BE51amQCTDMaVQ+1tnlp2dpbtFyKz59X+cWZ9UYrF5O12C8c0VeoHBed69Qh0m ae4lRb7PtbmT6Hy4iCLmJSg7nIB2AjG7Z/50o=|
|References:||<362522677.1010811248671789619.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1938435153.1010831248671852499.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <b094161c0907280550y58cde45fja97b2c413c92a8d4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A6F0978.4070709@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
ARM compiler is producing eabi. The problem lies in: "long long" on arm is 8 bytes aligned, on x86 is 4 bytes aligned. So 4 more bytes are padded before xfs_inode_log_format::ilf_ino on arm.
> Well, packing structures like mad is not a great solution - it needs
> to be done carefully & judiciously. We don't want to pack structures
> that are already aligned on most arches, because this will cause
> performance issues.
Interesting. Nice tip.
Get it. Thanks for the reminder.
Where is the official description of such requirment? The requirment is not obvious to new XFS users, and they should be warned :)
Why is such requirment? For backward compatibility?
I think the requirment is bad. It inhibit user from exchanging data freely between systems, which is an obvious requirment for file system design.
Compared with the above restriction("requirment"), we can afford this :)
Do I miss any other log/metadata needs pack on 2.6.10?
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: BUG REPORT: XFS LOG FORWARD COMPATIBILITY PROBLEM, Eric Sandeen|
|Next by Date:||Re: BUG REPORT: XFS LOG FORWARD COMPATIBILITY PROBLEM, Eric Sandeen|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: BUG REPORT: XFS LOG FORWARD COMPATIBILITY PROBLEM, Eric Sandeen|
|Next by Thread:||Re: BUG REPORT: XFS LOG FORWARD COMPATIBILITY PROBLEM, Eric Sandeen|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|