Oops, I mistook the intent of that check. Please disregard.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Justin Maggard <jmaggar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I saw a 32-bit build failure, but it looked like a legitimate bug,
> unrelated to the compiler version. Here's the trivial fix:
>
> diff --git a/ioctl.h b/ioctl.h
> index a7235c0..26a3a5a 100644
> --- a/ioctl.h
> +++ b/ioctl.h
> @@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ struct btrfs_ioctl_send_args {
> * Size of structure depends on pointer width, was not caught. Kernel
> handles
> * pointer width differences transparently
> */
> -BUILD_ASSERT(sizeof(__u64 *) == 8
> +BUILD_ASSERT(sizeof(__u64) == 8
> ? sizeof(struct btrfs_ioctl_send_args) == 72
> : (sizeof(void *) == 4
> ? sizeof(struct btrfs_ioctl_send_args) == 68
>
> -Justin
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 6:33 AM, David Sterba <dste...@suse.cz> wrote:
>> I got a report that the 32bit builds are broken. This seems to be caused
>> by padding inserted (or not) into the structures and depends on a
>> compiler version. The error messages may look cryptic, but if you see
>> something like
>>
>> ioctl.h:570:1: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_ASSERT'
>> BUILD_ASSERT(sizeof(struct btrfs_ioctl_received_subvol_args) == 200);
>>
>> that means that the given structure has an unexpected size. Fixing that
>> properly will probably lead to some tricks to force the exact size
>> regardless of arch bits and compiler.
>> --
>> 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
--
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
