[AFS3-std] RxOSD claim on 2 structure members

[David Boyes]

> But refusing to do something with a given field because someone
> somewhere *might* be using it is just silly. With that kind of logic,
> we'd have to avoid ever changing because the change might be
> incompatible with someone else's change.
>=20
> Let's have the groups we know of come forward, and lets put out a
> reasonable number of public requests for others as-yet-unknown to do
> so. If someone is hacking the source code and protocols at that level
> and is not on *any* of the afs lists, well, they lose.

I concur. This strikes me as a good set of reasons to explicitly rev the on=
 disk format and reserve any open areas as reserved for future use.=20

If you stick things in unused/undocumented areas in widely used control blo=
cks/disk areas, you should be prepared to adapt to future changes on your o=
wn. That's been the deal for as long as I've ever seen, and I don't see wha=
t makes this any different.=20