Ian Kent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Ian Kent <[email protected]> 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.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
