On Thursday, August 09, 2012 6:12 PM Dorau, Lukasz wrote: > > 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? > The patch "Grow.c: change size to be unsigned and use '0' in case of 'no change'" that I've just sent to linux-raid fixes it. Regards, Lukasz > 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 -- 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
