Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:27:11 -0700
From: Scott Bauer <scott.bauer@intel.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, snitzer@redhat.com, agk@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keith.busch@intel.com,
        jonathan.derrick@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dm-unstripe: unstripe RAID 0/dm-striped device
Message-ID: <20171215152710.djma3jau7dbdrnjr@sbauer-Z170X-UD5>
References: <20171213213332.2914-1-scott.bauer@intel.com>
 <20171213213332.2914-2-scott.bauer@intel.com>
 <4540fbf0-81e3-57b4-91e6-e33d5b5c578b@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4540fbf0-81e3-57b4-91e6-e33d5b5c578b@infradead.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 701
Lines: 23

[snip]
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 04:11:44PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 
> 	                                  >=
>

Thanks, good catch.


> > +	tot_sec = i_size_read(bbdev->bd_inode) >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
> > +	mod = tot_sec % target->chunk_sectors;
> 
> Did you build this on 32-bit also?  Is that '%' OK on 32-bit?

I've looked at this a bit and still can't figure out why this
modulo operation would operate differently on a 32 versus a 64
bit platform? I know sector_t is config dependent but the
sector_t should be promoted to 64 bit width during the modulo
operation.

Are you wondering whether sector_t is the right type for any of
the math in this file? Perhaps we should be safe and only use
u64s?