From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LRbJG-0001ac-HV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:56:06 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LRbJC-0001YT-2a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:56:06 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43447 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LRbJB-0001YO-TV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:56:01 -0500
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:39717)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1LRbJB-0002Ux-Gu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:56:01 -0500
Received: from jamie by mail2.shareable.org with local (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1LRbJA-0001sG-0m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:56:00 +0000
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:55:59 +0000
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] fix sector overflow for scsi disks >1TB large
Message-ID: <20090126235559.GD9296@shareable.org>
References: <20090126174209.1690ef05@bree.surriel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090126174209.1690ef05@bree.surriel.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Rik van Riel wrote:
> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@
>      /* ??? We should probably keep track of whether the data trasfer is

Not your fault, but I just noticed a typo: "trasfer" :-)

>          if (nb_sectors) {
>              nb_sectors--;
> +            /* Clip to 2TB, instead of returning capacity modulo 2TB. */
> +            if (nb_sectors > UINT_MAX)
> +                nb_sectors = UINT_MAX;
>              outbuf[0] = (nb_sectors >> 24) & 0xff;
>              outbuf[1] = (nb_sectors >> 16) & 0xff;
>              outbuf[2] = (nb_sectors >> 8) & 0xff;

Wouldn't it be clearer andd safer to say 0xffffffff here, or UINT32_MAX?

I know QEMU only runs on hosts with 32-bit unsigned int, and perhaps
that will always be truea, but it's a bit unnecessary to assume it here.

-- JAmie