On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 09:57:15AM +0000, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 13/07/2020 11:53, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:42:51AM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:05:09PM +0900, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > struct btrfs_ioctl_fs_info_args {
> > __u64 max_id; /* 0 8 */
> > __u64 num_devices; /* 8 8 */
> > __u8 fsid[16]; /* 16 16 */
> > __u32 nodesize; /* 32 4 */
> > __u32 sectorsize; /* 36 4 */
> > __u32 clone_alignment; /* 40 4 */
> > __u16 csum_type; /* 44 2 */
> > __u16 csum_size; /* 46 2 */
> > __u64 flags; /* 48 8 */
> > __u64 generation; /* 56 8 */
> > /* --- cacheline 1 boundary (64 bytes) --- */
> > __u8 reserved[960]; /* 64 960 */
> >
> > /* size: 1024, cachelines: 16, members: 11 */
> > };
> >
> > does not require any padding and leaves the end member with 8 byte
> > alignment.
>
> The swapped order looks a bit odd, but I don't really see a way around it.
> Can you fix that up or should I re-send all 4 patches?
Please resend all 4, I'll drop and replace the csum_* patch in
misc-next. Thanks.
