On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bart Van Assche
<bart.vanass...@sandisk.com> wrote:
> This patch is wrong. The purpose of the dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ check
> is to avoid that the expression 1UL * dev_loss_tmo * HZ further down
> overflows. Can you check whether changing the if-statement into if (1UL *
> dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ) also suppresses the compiler warning?
Hi Bart,
Right, now a I see...
Doing your proposed change the warning go away...
Do you want me to send a new patch for that?
--
Augusto Mecking Caringi
