[PATCH] bcache: writeback rate clamping: make 32 bit safe

[PATCH] bcache: writeback rate clamping: make 32 bit safe

[Michael Lyle]

Sorry this got through to linux-block, was detected by the kbuilds test
robot.  NSEC_PER_SEC is a long constant; 2.5 * 10^9 doesn't fit in a
signed long constant.

Signed-off-by: Michael Lyle <mlyle@lyle.org>
---
 drivers/md/bcache/util.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/util.c b/drivers/md/bcache/util.c
index 4dbe37e82877..e548b8b51322 100644
--- a/drivers/md/bcache/util.c
+++ b/drivers/md/bcache/util.c
@@ -238,8 +238,8 @@ uint64_t bch_next_delay(struct bch_ratelimit *d, uint64_t done)
 	 * don't let us sleep more than 2.5 seconds (so we can notice/respond
 	 * if the control system tells us to speed up!).
 	 */
-	if (time_before64(now + NSEC_PER_SEC * 5 / 2, d->next))
-		d->next = now + NSEC_PER_SEC * 5 / 2;
+	if (time_before64(now + NSEC_PER_SEC * 5LLU / 2LLU, d->next))
+		d->next = now + NSEC_PER_SEC * 5LLU / 2LLU;
 
 	if (time_after64(now - NSEC_PER_SEC * 2, d->next))
 		d->next = now - NSEC_PER_SEC * 2;
-- 
2.11.0

Re: [PATCH] bcache: writeback rate clamping: make 32 bit safe

[Coly Li]

On 2017/10/17 上午1:34, Michael Lyle wrote:
> Sorry this got through to linux-block, was detected by the kbuilds test
> robot.  NSEC_PER_SEC is a long constant; 2.5 * 10^9 doesn't fit in a
> signed long constant.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Lyle <mlyle@lyle.org>

I forgot i386 config... sorry too...

Reviewed-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>

Thanks to Michael for the fix.

Coly Li

> ---
>  drivers/md/bcache/util.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/util.c b/drivers/md/bcache/util.c
> index 4dbe37e82877..e548b8b51322 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/util.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/util.c
> @@ -238,8 +238,8 @@ uint64_t bch_next_delay(struct bch_ratelimit *d, uint64_t done)
>  	 * don't let us sleep more than 2.5 seconds (so we can notice/respond
>  	 * if the control system tells us to speed up!).
>  	 */
> -	if (time_before64(now + NSEC_PER_SEC * 5 / 2, d->next))
> -		d->next = now + NSEC_PER_SEC * 5 / 2;
> +	if (time_before64(now + NSEC_PER_SEC * 5LLU / 2LLU, d->next))
> +		d->next = now + NSEC_PER_SEC * 5LLU / 2LLU;
>  
>  	if (time_after64(now - NSEC_PER_SEC * 2, d->next))
>  		d->next = now - NSEC_PER_SEC * 2;

Re: [PATCH] bcache: writeback rate clamping: make 32 bit safe

[Jens Axboe]

On 10/16/2017 11:34 AM, Michael Lyle wrote:
> Sorry this got through to linux-block, was detected by the kbuilds test
> robot.  NSEC_PER_SEC is a long constant; 2.5 * 10^9 doesn't fit in a
> signed long constant.

Applied, but you should remember to add Fixes lines when a patch
explicitly fixes a problem introduced by a previous patch. Ala:

Fixes: e41166c5c44e ("bcache: writeback rate shouldn't artifically clamp")

so that backports have an easier time finding dependent fixes.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH] bcache: writeback rate clamping: make 32 bit safe

[Michael Lyle]

Jens--

Thanks for your patience.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 11:34 AM, Michael Lyle wrote:
>> Sorry this got through to linux-block, was detected by the kbuilds test
>> robot.  NSEC_PER_SEC is a long constant; 2.5 * 10^9 doesn't fit in a
>> signed long constant.
>
> Applied, but you should remember to add Fixes lines when a patch
> explicitly fixes a problem introduced by a previous patch. Ala:
>
> Fixes: e41166c5c44e ("bcache: writeback rate shouldn't artifically clamp")
>
> so that backports have an easier time finding dependent fixes.

Sorry about that too. I considered the Fixes: tag but didn't know if
the hashes would "hold true" into mainline.  Now I see Linus merges
your tree so the hash should be durable.

>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>

Mike

Re: [PATCH] bcache: writeback rate clamping: make 32 bit safe

[Jens Axboe]

On 10/16/2017 01:07 PM, Michael Lyle wrote:
> Jens--
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>> On 10/16/2017 11:34 AM, Michael Lyle wrote:
>>> Sorry this got through to linux-block, was detected by the kbuilds test
>>> robot.  NSEC_PER_SEC is a long constant; 2.5 * 10^9 doesn't fit in a
>>> signed long constant.
>>
>> Applied, but you should remember to add Fixes lines when a patch
>> explicitly fixes a problem introduced by a previous patch. Ala:
>>
>> Fixes: e41166c5c44e ("bcache: writeback rate shouldn't artifically clamp")
>>
>> so that backports have an easier time finding dependent fixes.
> 
> Sorry about that too. I considered the Fixes: tag but didn't know if
> the hashes would "hold true" into mainline.  Now I see Linus merges
> your tree so the hash should be durable.

They are durable once applied, so yeah.

-- 
Jens Axboe