[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070221191427.9b7cf4b0.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:14:27 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: mike.miller@...com
Cc: "Mike Miller (OS Dev)" <mikem@...rdog.cca.cpqcorp.net>,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/2] cciss: fix for 2TB support
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:10:39 -0600 "Mike Miller (OS Dev)" <mikem@...rdog.cca.cpqcorp.net> wrote:
> Patch 1/2
>
> This patch changes the way we determine if a logical volume is larger than 2TB. The
> original test looked for a total_size of 0. Originally we added 1 to the total_size.
> That would make our read_capacity return size 0 for >2TB lv's. We assumed that we
> could not have a lv size of 0 so it seemed OK until we were in a clustered system. The
> backup node would see a size of 0 due to the reservation on the drive. That caused
> the driver to switch to 16-byte CDB's which are not supported on older controllers.
> After that everything was broken.
> It may seem petty but I don't see the value in trying to determine if the LBA is
> beyond the 2TB boundary. That's why when we switch we use 16-byte CDB's for all
> read/write operations.
> Please consider this for inclusion.
>
> ...
>
> + if (total_size == 0xFFFFFFFF) {
I seem to remember having already questioned this. total_size is sector_t, which
can be either 32-bit or 64-bit. Are you sure that comparison works as
intended in both cases?
> + if(total_size == 0xFFFFFFFF) {
> cciss_read_capacity_16(cntl_num, i, 0,
> &total_size, &block_size);
> hba[cntl_num]->cciss_read = CCISS_READ_16;
Here too.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists