On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 05:34 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > @@ -393,6 +394,7 @@ struct address_space {
> > gfp_t gfp_mask; /* implicit gfp mask for
> > allocations */
> > struct list_head private_list; /* ditto */
> > void *private_data; /* ditto */
> > + errseq_t wb_err;
> > } __attribute__((aligned(sizeof(long))));
> > /*
> > * On most architectures that alignment is already the case; but
> > @@ -847,6 +849,7 @@ struct file {
> > * Must not be taken from IRQ context.
> > */
> > spinlock_t f_lock;
> > + errseq_t f_wb_err;
> > atomic_long_t f_count;
> > unsigned int f_flags;
> > fmode_t f_mode;
>
> Did you check the sizes of the structure before and after?
> These places don't look like holes in the packing, but there probably
> are some available.
>
Yes. That one actually plugs a 4 byte hole in struct file on x86_64.
> > +static inline int filemap_check_wb_err(struct address_space *mapping,
> > errseq_t since)
>
> Overly long line here (the patch has a few more)
>
Ok, I'll fix those up.
--
Jeff Layton <jlay...@redhat.com>
--
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
