[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 10:45 AM
To: Mark Haverkamp
Cc: Salyzyn, Mark; linux-scsi; James Bottomley
Subject: RE: [PATCH 7/7] aacraid: sgraw command support
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 07:24 -0700, Mark Haverkamp wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 07:40 -0400, Salyzyn, Mark w
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 07:24 -0700, Mark Haverkamp wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 07:40 -0400, Salyzyn, Mark wrote:
> > In these cases, the 'addr' is an u64, so is it necessary to perform this
> > modification?
>
> Arjan,
>
> Do you agree with the above? If so, is the patch OK as is?
Ok you're o
: Thursday, August 04, 2005 4:17 AM
> To: Mark Haverkamp
> Cc: Salyzyn, Mark; linux-scsi; James Bottomley
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] aacraid: sgraw command support
>
> On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 15:39 -0700, Mark Haverkamp wrote:
> > + psg->sg[0].addr[1] = cpu_to_le
ly -- Mark Salyzyn
-Original Message-
From: Arjan van de Ven [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 4:17 AM
To: Mark Haverkamp
Cc: Salyzyn, Mark; linux-scsi; James Bottomley
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] aacraid: sgraw command support
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 15:39 -0700, Mark
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 15:39 -0700, Mark Haverkamp wrote:
> + psg->sg[0].addr[1] = cpu_to_le32((u32)(addr>>32));
this is very risky code; if addr is a 32 bit entity, then this is
undefined behavior (which due to the vagities of x86 asm might get
optimized out entirely). It is a lot sa
5 matches
Mail list logo