[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[dm-devel] Re: [PATCH] 1/1: Device-Mapper: Remove 1024 devices limitation



Jim Houston <jim houston comcast net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 17:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Kevin Corry <kevcorry us ibm com> wrote:
> > >
> > > After talking with Alasdair a bit, there might be one bug in the "dm-use-idr"
> > > patch I submitted before. It seems (based on some comments in lib/idr.c) that
> > > the idr_find() routine might not return NULL if the desired ID value is not
> > > in the tree.
> > 
> > 
> > Confused.  idr_find() returns the thing it found, or NULL.  To which
> > comments do you refer?
> 
> Hi Andrew, Kevin,
> 
> Kevin is correct.  It's more of the nonsense related to having a counter
> in the upper bits of the id.  If you call idr_find with an id that is
> beyond the currently allocated space it ignores the upper bits and
> returns one of the entries that is in the allocated space.  This
> aliasing is most annoying.

erk, OK, we have vestigial bits still.  Note that MAX_ID_SHIFT is now 31 on
32-bit, so we're still waggling the top bit.

> I'm attaching an untested patch which removes the counter in the upper
> bits of the id and makes idr_find return NULL if the requested id is
> beyond the allocated space.

Would you have time to get it tested please?

>  I suspect that there are problems with
> id values which are less than zero.

Me too.  I'd only be confident in the 0..2G range.


> -#endif
> +	if (id >= (1 << n))
> +		return NULL;
>  	while (n > 0 && p) {
>  		n -= IDR_BITS;
>  		p = p->ary[(id >> n) & IDR_MASK];
> 

I think the above test is unneeded?

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]