From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750785AbWBQLD4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2006 06:03:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750839AbWBQLD4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2006 06:03:56 -0500 Received: from wombat.indigo.net.au ([202.0.185.19]:24590 "EHLO wombat.indigo.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750785AbWBQLDz (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2006 06:03:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:03:09 +0800 (WST) From: Ian Kent To: Andrew Morton cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, autofs@linux.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC:PATCH 4/4] autofs4 - add new packet type for v5 communications In-Reply-To: <20060217011712.66ba594c.akpm@osdl.org> Message-ID: References: <200602170701.k1H71Irp004035@eagle.themaw.net> <20060217005134.6842f0ca.akpm@osdl.org> <20060217011712.66ba594c.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-themaw-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (score=-1.896, required 5, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -2.60, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24 0.70) X-themaw-MailScanner-From: raven@themaw.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > Ian Kent wrote: > > > > On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > Ian Kent wrote: > > > > > > > > +/* autofs v5 common packet struct */ > > > > +struct autofs_v5_packet { > > > > + struct autofs_packet_hdr hdr; > > > > + autofs_wqt_t wait_queue_token; > > > > + __u32 dev; > > > > + __u64 ino; > > > > + uid_t uid; > > > > + gid_t gid; > > > > + pid_t pid; > > > > + pid_t tgid; > > > > + int len; > > > > + char name[NAME_MAX+1]; > > > > +}; > > > > > > Is this known to work with 32-bit userspace on 64-bit kernels? > > > > > > In particular, perhaps the ?id_t's should become a type of known size and > > > alignment (u32 or u64)? > > > > > > > Yes. I take your point. > > > > I used this for some time on my Ultra 2, which has this type of arch, > > without problem. I increased the ino field from 32 to 64 bits since that > > time and haven't since tested it. > > > > I'm happy to change them to 64 bit if you believe it will avoid potential > > problems? > > > > This stuff always makes my head spin, but certainly using u64 throughout > would be the safest approach. > OK. I'll change it, test it tomorrow and post the resulting patch. Ian