On 1/22/16 3:28 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 21-01-16 22:07:20, Eric Sandeen wrote:
...
Same comments as for XFS version apply here.
*nod*
Furthermore:
quoted
diff --git a/fs/quota/compat.c b/fs/quota/compat.c
index fb1892f..80773a4 100644
--- a/fs/quota/compat.c
+++ b/fs/quota/compat.c
@@ -19,6 +19,19 @@ struct compat_if_dqblk {
compat_uint_t dqb_valid;
};
+struct compat_if_nextdqblk {
+ compat_u64 dqb_bhardlimit;
+ compat_u64 dqb_bsoftlimit;
+ compat_u64 dqb_curspace;
+ compat_u64 dqb_ihardlimit;
+ compat_u64 dqb_isoftlimit;
+ compat_u64 dqb_curinodes;
+ compat_u64 dqb_btime;
+ compat_u64 dqb_itime;
+ compat_uint_t dqb_valid;
+ compat_uint_t dqb_id;
+};
+
Is there a need for compat version of this structure? Everything is
naturally aligned and the size is a multiple of 8 bytes. But these things
keep surprising me... Added CC to linux-api in a hope that there's someone
who definitely knows.
Ok, yeah, I wasn't sure. I'll take all the compat stuff out of this one,
and can do a separate patch if needed, but I bet you're right, it's probably
not. I did set up to test 32-compat calls, so I'll just test w/o this.
I'd be perfectly happy to drop it. :)
Thanks for the review, Jan.
-Eric