On 10/25/19 6:54 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/25/19 6:43 AM, Colin King wrote: >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Shifting the integer value 1U is evaluated with type unsigned int >> using 32-bit arithmetic and then used in an expression that expects >> a 64-bit value, so there is potentially an integer overflow. Fix this >> by using the BIT_ULL macro to perform the shift and avoid the overflow. > > Good catch, that should indeed have been 1ULL. I'll fold in your > fix, thanks! BTW, this missed the same issue on the clear side of it, in io_worker_handle_work(). I've fixed that one up the same way. -- Jens Axboe
