| To: | Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] 2.6.35.4: Fixed simple warning (array subscript is above array bounds) |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:48:35 -0400 |
| Cc: | Poyo VL <poyo_vl@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1284655322.2153.22.camel@doink> |
| References: | <388312.90213.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1284655322.2153.22.camel@doink> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) |
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:42:02AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > Additionally, the alignment of the overall structure > will be 64 bits because of hte inumber field. Expanding > the name field by another byte will not change that. > > So I think this change is OK. Can anyone else > back me up? We do sizeof requests on a few of these structures, not sure if it includes this one. I have a patchset to dust off that gets rid of all the structures that aren't actually physically on disk. I'll try to dust if off and submit it - this was a preparation for the CRC enablement of the directory structures. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] 2.6.35.4: Fixed simple warning (array subscript is above array bounds), Alex Elder |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] xfstests: add local.config example, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] 2.6.35.4: Fixed simple warning (array subscript is above array bounds), Alex Elder |
| Next by Thread: | 2% Loan Offer....Apply Now, CHURCHILL STRONG |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |