From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k9D8Z2aG008341 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:35:05 -0700 Received: from ext.agami.com (64.221.212.177.ptr.us.xo.net [64.221.212.177]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 78B93D1946AA for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:34:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from agami.com ([192.168.168.127]) by ext.agami.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id k9D8YI3l029920 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:34:18 -0700 Received: from mx1.agami.com (mx1.agami.com [10.123.10.30]) by agami.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9D8YDaB005917 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:34:13 -0700 Message-ID: <452F4EDF.6010500@agami.com> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:01:27 +0530 From: Shailendra Tripathi MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Data type overflow in xfs_trans_unreserve_and_mod_sb References: <55EF1E5D5804A542A6CA37E446DDC206655888@mapibe17.exchange.xchg> <45179573.3020007@agami.com> <20061011052557.GM19345@melbourne.sgi.com> <20061013061354.GF19345@melbourne.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20061013061354.GF19345@melbourne.sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: sandeen@sandeen.net, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Timothy Shimmin David Chinner wrote: >>Eric, you suggested specific 64 bit types - I think that's really the >>way to fix this, but it's a much bigger change... > > > Shailendra, here's a patch that passes XFSQA that changes this all to 64 bit > types. I've had to fix various type abuses that weren't obvious because gcc > fails to warn when you pass a uint into a function parameter that is declared > as int64_t..... > > I haven't tested the >2TB grow case yet, but it should work now > on both 32bit and 64 bit platforms with this patch. > > Is there anything I missed here in the conversion? > > Cheers, > > Dave. Looks ok to me, Dave. Thanks.