From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert Lee Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] CHS: LBA28/LBA48 optimization (resend #5) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:05:31 +0800 Message-ID: <434C999B.2040001@tw.ibm.com> References: <4321B4E0.8020801@tw.ibm.com> <4321C7DD.5050503@pobox.com> <43322C50.1060009@tw.ibm.com> <4333CF07.5010400@pobox.com> <4339116D.30908@tw.ibm.com> <433912FB.9000606@tw.ibm.com> <58cb370e05092903083e0d001c@mail.gmail.com> <433D1BC7.6060301@tw.ibm.com> <433D1FC7.2060401@pobox.com> <43411A1A.8050901@tw.ibm.com> <43412FF6.5030006@tw.ibm.com> <43413386.6000203@pobox.com> <43424EC6.2040100@pobox.com> <43426ED9.8030004@tw.ibm.com> <4342706B.3030608@pobox.com> <43427405.80502@tw.ibm.com> <434276B9.7080807@tw.ibm.com> <43427AFD.1020405@pobox.com> <4343B5F5.4090402@tw.ibm.com> <434509EF.3040307@pobox.com> <43461B81.1090808@tw.ibm.com> <43463296.3090007@tw.ibm.com> <43491E26.40508@pobox.com> <434B9C86.604@tw.ibm.com> <434BA048.3000905@tw.ibm.com> <434BBA23.3030906@rtr.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:36825 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932447AbVJLFFi (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:05:38 -0400 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9C54PUv015268 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:04:25 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j9C56Jtu290094 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:06:19 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9C55VK1025813 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:05:31 -0600 In-Reply-To: <434BBA23.3030906@rtr.ca> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Lord Cc: Jeff Garzik , Linux IDE Mark Lord wrote: > Ah, here it is: > >> +static inline int lba_28_ok(u64 block, u32 n_block) >> +{ >> + return (block < ((u64)1 << 28)) && (n_block <= 256); >> +} >> + > > > That will need to change, so something like this: > > return ((block + n_block - 1) < ((u64)1 << 28)) && (n_block <= 256); > - Thanks for the advice. I didn't think of it. Will revise and resend the patch. Albert