From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265247AbTGHS73 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:59:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267260AbTGHS73 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:59:29 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:56850 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265247AbTGHS72 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:59:28 -0400 To: Andrew Morton Cc: jkenisto@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH - RFC] [1/2] 2.6 must-fix list - kernel error reporting References: <3F0AFFE6.E85FF283@us.ibm.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <20030708105912.57015026.akpm@osdl.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel> From: Andi Kleen Date: 08 Jul 2003 21:14:04 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20030708105912.57015026.akpm@osdl.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton writes: > The layout of `struct kern_log_entry' may be problematic. Think of the > situation where a 64-bit kernel constructs one of these and sends it up to > 32-bit userspace. Will the structure layout be the same under the 32-bit > compiler as under the 64-bit one? No it won't. Best is to order the fields by size (arrays ordered by their subtype). This should always give compatible alignment. -Andi