On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:09:41PM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote: > Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote: >>> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >>>> What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start << bsbits; >>>> >>> Hi Aneesh, >>> your patch below doesn't fix the issue, because as start_off is also >>> loff_t, start_off = ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical << bsbits also overflows. >>> >> >> loff_t is 64 bits. >> >> typedef __kernel_loff_t loff_t; >> typedef long long __kernel_loff_t; >> typedef __u32 ext4_lblk_t; >> typedef unsigned long long ext4_fsblk_t >> >> start_off = ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical << bsbits; >> >> In the above line what we are storing in start_off is the offset in bytes.So it makes >> sense to use the type loff_t. It is neither logical block nor physical block. > > Oh yes, sorry, you're right. I read too quickly. > > In fact, it's missing a cast : > start_off = (loff_t) ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical << bsbits; > > With that change, the test is ok. Updated patch below. -aneesh