[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Fixed simple warning (array subscript is above arr

To: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 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>