Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:09:23 +0000 | From | Richard Curnow <> | Subject | Re: struct nfs_fattr alignment problem in nfs3proc.c |
| |
* Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> [2003-03-22]: > Why not just define > > struct { > struct nfs3_diropargs arg; > struct nfs_fattr res; > } unlinkxdr; > > and then kmalloc that? >
Yes, that's much better, since it also avoids bloating the allocation on architectures that only need 4-byte alignment for later stores into the result structures to work, plus it's more future-proof. Here's the revised patch.
--- ../linux-2.4/fs/nfs/nfs3proc.c Fri Jan 3 15:01:17 2003 +++ fs/nfs/nfs3proc.c Mon Mar 24 09:39:21 2003 @@ -294,25 +294,30 @@ nfs_refresh_inode(dir, &dir_attr); dprintk("NFS reply remove: %d\n", status); return status; } static int nfs3_proc_unlink_setup(struct rpc_message *msg, struct dentry *dir, struct qstr *name) { struct nfs3_diropargs *arg; struct nfs_fattr *res; + struct unlinkxdr { + struct nfs3_diropargs *arg; + struct nfs_fattr *res; + } *ptr; - arg = (struct nfs3_diropargs *)kmalloc(sizeof(*arg)+sizeof(*res), GFP_KERNEL); - if (!arg) + ptr = (struct unlinkxdr *) kmalloc(sizeof(struct unlinkxdr), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!ptr) return -ENOMEM; - res = (struct nfs_fattr*)(arg + 1); + arg = &ptr->arg; + res = &ptr->res; arg->fh = NFS_FH(dir->d_inode); arg->name = name->name; arg->len = name->len; res->valid = 0; msg->rpc_proc = NFS3PROC_REMOVE; msg->rpc_argp = arg; msg->rpc_resp = res; return 0; } Cheers Richard
-- Richard \\\ SuperH Core+Debug Architect /// .. At home .. P. /// richard.curnow@superh.com /// rc@rc0.org.uk Curnow \\\ http://www.superh.com/ /// www.rc0.org.uk Speaking for myself, not on behalf of SuperH - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |