From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] bio-integrity: use hardware sectors instead of block layer sectors
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 10:32:52 +0100
Message-ID: <20100507093252.GC19699@shareable.org>
References: <20100507082928.GT27064@bicker>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
To: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:47368 "EHLO
	mail2.shareable.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755751Ab0EGJc6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 7 May 2010 05:32:58 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100507082928.GT27064@bicker>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Smatch tagged this code as suspicious because we never use the
> "nr_sectors" variable.  Looking at the code, I think we did intend to
> use "nr_sectors" instead of "sectors" when we call
> bio_integrity_mark_tail().
> 
> The difference between "sectors" and "nr_sectors" is that "sectors" is in
> terms of 512 byte sectors and "nr_sectors" is in terms of hardware 
> sectors.  They are only different for 4k sector devices.

That code is so asking for the variable to be called "hw_sectors".

-- Jamie