On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 10:20:16AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> On 07/05/2012 10:14 AM, Alexander Block wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Zach Brown<z...@zabbo.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>Careful, timespec will be different sizes in 32bit userspace and a 64bit
> >>kernel. I'd use btrfs_timespec to get a fixed size timespec and avoid
> >>all the compat_timespec noise. (I'd then also worry about padding and
> >>might pack the struct.. I always lose track of the best practice across
> >>all archs.)
>
> >Hmm we currently don't have ctree.h in ioctl.h. Can I include it there
> >or are there problems with that? As an alternative I could define my
> >own struct for that.
>
> Hmm, yeah, it looks like ioctl.h is well isolated and doesn't really
> have a precedent for pulling in format bits from the kernel
> implementation.
>
> I'd do as you suggested and just make its own ioctl_timespec with a
> comment that its duplicating other similar structures to keep ioctl.h
> from getting tangled up in the kernel-side includes.
This has been done for restriper, see struct btrfs_balance_args vs
struct btrfs_disk_balance_args. You could do the same thing:
struct btrfs_ioctl_timespec {
__u64 sec;
__u32 nsec;
} __attribute__ ((__packed__));
and take endianess into account with le{64,32}_to_cpu and
cpu_to_le{64,32} macros.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
