On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:45:29 -0800 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ... > > > I don't get it. As the man says, this is presently dead code and > > string_get_size() will need to be changed to work for disks larger than > > 2^64 bytes. That change may be to take a u128 or it may be as you > > suggest: replace the `u64 size' with `u64 size, u64 units' which is > > effectively the same thing. > > The first thing someone's going to do is pass in blocks, because that's > the way the rest of block functions. If we're lucky the add "ZB" too, > but if not we run off the end in some obscure large cluster somewhere. > Don't set people up to make mistakes. Well maybe. A little bit. But it assumes that someone is going to make a change then not test it. > > > > Also there's no need to include and test for the NULL sentinel; once we > > > > reach "E" size is at most 18. [The test is also wrong; it should be > > > > units_str[units][i+1]; if we've reached NULL we're already doomed.] > > > > > > So fix the bug, don't set us up to run off the end of the array. And > > > please consult the community which keeps track of this rather than > > > trying to get it into Linux without review. > > > > That seems a bit harsh - you've been cc'ed on this every step of the way. > > I think you need to check your scripts. This is the first time I've > seen this patch, which is why I'm reacting this way. No, James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx was cc'ed on the original email and on the -mm spam. Perhaps Rasmus should should also have cc'ed linux-scsi - practice seems to vary a lot. But he did cc the scsi maintainer and the author of the patch he was modifying (yourself). So I think the patch is reasonable and the way Rasmus and I handled it is also reasonable. Going nuts at us over it isn't reasonable! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
