Hi Christoph,
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Looks like the structure size checker found it's first victim on m68k,
> which doesn't seem to pad to 4 byte boundaries. I don't think it actually
> matters in practice as we'll always the hacky appromiation of a variable
> sized array behind it. I guess we should move this to a modern C99 VLA
> and mark it as __packed?
Marking it __packed causes the compiler to assume that the other 32-bit
values may not be aligned.
You can add 2 padding bytes to struct xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote.
Or change name[1] to name[3].
> ----- Forwarded message from kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> -----
>
> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 21:26:23 +0800
> From: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pnfs:xfs-nfsd-clone] 57b7d25bf4c57ebe0fbd2d8c5b37edf503175e1f
> BUILD DONE
> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>
> git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/pnfs.git xfs-nfsd-clone
> 57b7d25bf4c57ebe0fbd2d8c5b37edf503175e1f nfs4: fix stateid handling for the
> NFS v4.2 operations
>
> fs/xfs/xfs_ondisk.h:22:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
> fs/xfs/xfs_ondisk.h:74:2: note: in expansion of macro 'XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE'
> include/linux/compiler.h:502:38: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_74'
> declared with attribute error: XFS: sizeof(xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote_t) is
> wrong, expected 12
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
|