Hi Neil What does the '-1' value of size (Grow.c:1990 and Grow.c:2678) mean now regarding your recent patch:? >From d04f65f48c93e7e57cc3c1d70dd07d094dece717 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:20:32 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] Change the values for "max size" from -1 to 1. There are two places (Grow.c:1990 and Grow.c:2678) where reshape_super() is called with size==-1. Is it still right? I am asking you because you have changed also the 'size' parameter of imsm_reshape_super() from signed to unsigned (super-intel.c:9884). When reshape_super() is called with size==-1 at Grow.c:2678, imsm_reshape_super() is called with size==-1 too, so the size is converted to unsigned value 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF and the logic is broken down, because the condition "geo->size != -1" at super-intel.c:9310 had been false previously and now the condition "geo->size > 0" is true, because size==0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF now: @@ -9307,7 +9307,7 @@ static int imsm_reshape_is_allowed_on_container(struct supertype *st, "st->devnum = (%i)\n", st->devnum); - if (geo->size != -1 || + if (geo->size > 0 || I am going to correct it, but I don't know if the '-1' value of size parameter at Grow.c:1990 and Grow.c:2678 is still right? Regards, Lukasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
