On Wednesday May 16, david@xxxxxxx wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2007, Neil Brown wrote: > > > On Thursday May 17, Jeff.Zheng@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> > >>> The only difference of any significance between the working > >>> and non-working configurations is that in the non-working, > >>> the component devices are larger than 2Gig, and hence have > >>> sector offsets greater than 32 bits. > >> > >> Do u mean 2T here?, but in both configuartion, the component devices are > >> larger than 2T (2.25T&5.5T). > > > > Yes, I meant 2T, and yes, the components are always over 2T. > > 2T decimal or 2T binary? > Either. The smallest as actually 2.75T (typo above). Precisely it was 2929641472 kilobytes or 5859282944 sectors or 0x15D3D9000 sectors. So it is over 32bits already... Uhm, I just noticed something. 'chunk' is unsigned long, and when it gets shifted up, we might lose bits. That could still happen with the 4*2.75T arrangement, but is much more likely in the 2*5.5T arrangement. Jeff, can you try this patch? Thanks. NeilBrown Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> ### Diffstat output ./drivers/md/raid0.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff .prev/drivers/md/raid0.c ./drivers/md/raid0.c --- .prev/drivers/md/raid0.c 2007-05-17 10:33:30.000000000 +1000 +++ ./drivers/md/raid0.c 2007-05-17 15:02:15.000000000 +1000 @@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ static int raid0_make_request (request_q x = block >> chunksize_bits; tmp_dev = zone->dev[sector_div(x, zone->nb_dev)]; } - rsect = (((chunk << chunksize_bits) + zone->dev_offset)<<1) + rsect = ((((sector_t)chunk << chunksize_bits) + zone->dev_offset)<<1) + sect_in_chunk; bio->bi_bdev = tmp_dev->bdev; - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
