> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:52:29 -0600 "Mike Miller (OS Dev)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:06:41PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 16:02 -0600, Mike Miller (OS Dev) wrote:
> > > Will this patch for my patch work for now?
> >
> > Yes, I think
Patch 1/2
This patch changes the constant 0x to 0xULL to prevent sign
extension.
Previously:
This patch changes the way we determine if a logical volume is larger than 2TB.
The
original test looked for a total_size of 0. Originally we added 1 to the
total_size.
That would
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:06:41PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 16:02 -0600, Mike Miller (OS Dev) wrote:
> > Will this patch for my patch work for now?
>
> Yes, I think that should be fine ... it's only a theoretical worry; at
> the moment sector_t is unsigned ... but
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:06:41PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 16:02 -0600, Mike Miller (OS Dev) wrote:
Will this patch for my patch work for now?
Yes, I think that should be fine ... it's only a theoretical worry; at
the moment sector_t is unsigned ... but just in
Patch 1/2
This patch changes the constant 0x to 0xULL to prevent sign
extension.
Previously:
This patch changes the way we determine if a logical volume is larger than 2TB.
The
original test looked for a total_size of 0. Originally we added 1 to the
total_size.
That would
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:52:29 -0600 Mike Miller (OS Dev) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:06:41PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 16:02 -0600, Mike Miller (OS Dev) wrote:
Will this patch for my patch work for now?
Yes, I think that should be fine
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 16:02 -0600, Mike Miller (OS Dev) wrote:
> Will this patch for my patch work for now?
Yes, I think that should be fine ... it's only a theoretical worry; at
the moment sector_t is unsigned ... but just in case.
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 03:41:24PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 13:24 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:51:23 -0600 "Mike Miller (OS Dev)" <[EMAIL
> > > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 07:14:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 13:24 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:51:23 -0600 "Mike Miller (OS Dev)" <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 07:14:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:10:39 -0600 "Mike Miller (OS Dev)" <[EMAIL
> > >
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Miller (OS Dev) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Andrew,
> Using this test program and changing the type of x to int,
> long, long long signed and unsigned the comparison always
> worked on x86, x86_64, and ia64. It looks to me like the
> comparsion
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:51:23 -0600 "Mike Miller (OS Dev)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 07:14:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:10:39 -0600 "Mike Miller (OS Dev)" <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Patch 1/2
> > > + if
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 07:14:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > + if (total_size == 0x) {
>
> I seem to remember having already questioned this. total_size is sector_t,
> which
> can be either 32-bit or 64-bit. Are you sure that comparison works as
> intended in both cases?
>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 07:14:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:10:39 -0600 "Mike Miller (OS Dev)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Patch 1/2
> >
> > This patch changes the way we determine if a logical volume is larger than
> > 2TB. The
> > original test looked for a
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 07:14:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:10:39 -0600 Mike Miller (OS Dev) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Patch 1/2
This patch changes the way we determine if a logical volume is larger than
2TB. The
original test looked for a total_size of 0.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 07:14:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
+ if (total_size == 0x) {
I seem to remember having already questioned this. total_size is sector_t,
which
can be either 32-bit or 64-bit. Are you sure that comparison works as
intended in both cases?
+
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:51:23 -0600 Mike Miller (OS Dev) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 07:14:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:10:39 -0600 Mike Miller (OS Dev) [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Patch 1/2
+ if (total_size == 0x) {
-Original Message-
From: Mike Miller (OS Dev) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew,
Using this test program and changing the type of x to int,
long, long long signed and unsigned the comparison always
worked on x86, x86_64, and ia64. It looks to me like the
comparsion will
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 13:24 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:51:23 -0600 Mike Miller (OS Dev) [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 07:14:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:10:39 -0600 Mike Miller (OS Dev) [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 03:41:24PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 13:24 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:51:23 -0600 Mike Miller (OS Dev) [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 07:14:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 16:02 -0600, Mike Miller (OS Dev) wrote:
Will this patch for my patch work for now?
Yes, I think that should be fine ... it's only a theoretical worry; at
the moment sector_t is unsigned ... but just in case.
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:10:39 -0600 "Mike Miller (OS Dev)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Patch 1/2
>
> This patch changes the way we determine if a logical volume is larger than
> 2TB. The
> original test looked for a total_size of 0. Originally we added 1 to the
> total_size.
> That would make
Patch 1/2
This patch changes the way we determine if a logical volume is larger than 2TB.
The
original test looked for a total_size of 0. Originally we added 1 to the
total_size.
That would make our read_capacity return size 0 for >2TB lv's. We assumed that
we
could not have a lv size of 0 so
Patch 1/2
This patch changes the way we determine if a logical volume is larger than 2TB.
The
original test looked for a total_size of 0. Originally we added 1 to the
total_size.
That would make our read_capacity return size 0 for 2TB lv's. We assumed that
we
could not have a lv size of 0 so
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:10:39 -0600 Mike Miller (OS Dev) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Patch 1/2
This patch changes the way we determine if a logical volume is larger than
2TB. The
original test looked for a total_size of 0. Originally we added 1 to the
total_size.
That would make our
24 matches
Mail list logo
