Hi Geert-san, > From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 3:23 PM > > Hi Shimoda-san, > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:54 AM Yoshihiro Shimoda > <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 4:27 PM > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:18 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:35:44PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: <snip> > > > > This really should use a min_t on size_t. Otherwise the patch looks > > > > fine: > > > > > > Followed by another min() to make it fit in mmc->max_req_size, which is > > > unsigned int. > > > > Geert-san: > > > > I'm afraid, but I cannot understand this means. > > Is this patch is possible to be upstream? Or, do you have any concern? > > Please disregard my last comment: as the value of "mmc->max_blk_size * > mmc->max_blk_count" is always 0xffff_ffff or less, "min_t(size_t, > mmc->max_blk_size * mmc->max_blk_count, dma_max_mapping_size(&pdev->dev))" > will always be 0xffff_ffff or less, too, so there is no extra step needed > to make it fit in mmc->max_req_size. Thank you for your prompt reply! I understood it. > Sorry for the confusion. No worries. Best regards, Yoshihiro Shimoda
