From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] cciss typo fix Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:19:28 -0500 Message-ID: <1105139968.4151.26.camel@mulgrave> References: <20050107230103.GB26037@beardog.cca.cpqcorp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat16.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.48]:48611 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261713AbVAGXTz (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jan 2005 18:19:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20050107230103.GB26037@beardog.cca.cpqcorp.net> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: mike.miller@hp.com Cc: Andrew Morton , Jens Axboe , Linux Kernel , SCSI Mailing List On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 17:01 -0600, mike.miller@hp.com wrote: > - *total_size = be32_to_cpu(*((__be32 *) &buf->total_size[0]))+1; > - *block_size = be32_to_cpu(*((__be32 *) &buf->block_size[0])); > + *total_size = be32_to_cpu(*((__u32 *) &buf->total_size[0]))+1; > + *block_size = be32_to_cpu(*((__u32 *) &buf->block_size[0])); I don't think that's a typo. It was introduced by this patch: ChangeSet 1.1988.24.79 2004/10/06 07:55:02 viro@www.linux.org.uk [PATCH] cciss endianness and iomem annotations The idea being that BE and LE numbers should be annotated differently, so the __be32 annotations look correct to me. I think sparse will warn if you make this change. James