Re: [Patch 1/2] cciss: fix for 2TB support

2007-02-23 Thread Mike Miller (OS Dev)
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

Re: [Patch 1/2] cciss: fix for 2TB support

2007-02-23 Thread Andrew Morton
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

Re: [Patch 1/2] cciss: fix for 2TB support

2007-02-22 Thread Mike Miller (OS Dev)
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.

Re: [Patch 1/2] cciss: fix for 2TB support

2007-02-22 Thread Mike Miller (OS Dev)
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? +

Re: [Patch 1/2] cciss: fix for 2TB support

2007-02-22 Thread Andrew Morton
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) {

RE: [Patch 1/2] cciss: fix for 2TB support

2007-02-22 Thread Miller, Mike (OS Dev)
-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

Re: [Patch 1/2] cciss: fix for 2TB support

2007-02-22 Thread James Bottomley
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:

Re: [Patch 1/2] cciss: fix for 2TB support

2007-02-22 Thread Mike Miller (OS Dev)
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

Re: [Patch 1/2] cciss: fix for 2TB support

2007-02-22 Thread James Bottomley
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

Re: [Patch 1/2] cciss: fix for 2TB support

2007-02-21 Thread Andrew Morton
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