From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751647AbdFHHwM (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2017 03:52:12 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:57534 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750917AbdFHHwL (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2017 03:52:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:52:09 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Johannes Thumshirn Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Sagi Grimberg , Keith Busch , Hannes Reinecke , Max Gurtovoy , Linux NVMe Mailinglist , Linux Kernel Mailinglist Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/10] nvmet: implement namespace identify descriptor list Message-ID: <20170608075209.GA14359@lst.de> References: <20170607094536.32419-1-jthumshirn@suse.de> <20170607094536.32419-6-jthumshirn@suse.de> <20170608074414.GD13953@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:49:35AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On 06/08/2017 09:44 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> + if (sg_zeroout_area(req->sg, req->sg_cnt, NVME_IDENTIFY_DATA_SIZE, off) > > > > Shouldn;t the third argument be NVME_IDENTIFY_DATA_SIZE - off in theory? > > It's probably fine as is as the S/G helpers deal with overflows > > gracefully, but still.. > > Ahm yes. *doh* > > Can you fix it up when applying? Sure. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:52:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v6 05/10] nvmet: implement namespace identify descriptor list In-Reply-To: References: <20170607094536.32419-1-jthumshirn@suse.de> <20170607094536.32419-6-jthumshirn@suse.de> <20170608074414.GD13953@lst.de> Message-ID: <20170608075209.GA14359@lst.de> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017@09:49:35AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On 06/08/2017 09:44 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> + if (sg_zeroout_area(req->sg, req->sg_cnt, NVME_IDENTIFY_DATA_SIZE, off) > > > > Shouldn;t the third argument be NVME_IDENTIFY_DATA_SIZE - off in theory? > > It's probably fine as is as the S/G helpers deal with overflows > > gracefully, but still.. > > Ahm yes. *doh* > > Can you fix it up when applying? Sure.