[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADFy_4HK9nxcB0xn6_Hw6xVKgJKVuVfkFPTsfQSoe-bJc6gGMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:06:53 +0000
From: Augusto Mecking Caringi <augustocaringi@...il.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>
Cc: "jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"emilne@...hat.com" <emilne@...hat.com>,
"andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com"
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"sagi@...mberg.me" <sagi@...mberg.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: srp_transport: Fix 'always false comparison' in srp_tmo_valid()
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bart Van Assche
<Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com> wrote:
> This patch is wrong. The purpose of the dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ check
> is to avoid that the expression 1UL * dev_loss_tmo * HZ further down
> overflows. Can you check whether changing the if-statement into if (1UL *
> dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ) also suppresses the compiler warning?
Hi Bart,
Right, now a I see...
Doing your proposed change the warning go away...
Do you want me to send a new patch for that?
--
Augusto Mecking Caringi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists