[sheepdog] [PATCH] dog: type cast miss at vdi_show_progress

[Saeki Masaki]

On 2015/02/10 18:30, Liu Yuan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 06:22:33PM +0900, Saeki Masaki wrote:
>> On 2015/02/10 16:33, Liu Yuan wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:03:56PM +0900, Saeki Masaki wrote:
>>>> The result of the multiplication of uint32 and uint64 are rounded to uint32
>>>> So, Progress of the command is displayed back to 0%,
>>>> when it exceeds the boundaries of 32bit.
>>>>
>>>> This is only a display issue, command processing can be completed.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Masaki Saeki <saeki.masaki at po.ntts.co.jp>
>>>> ---
>>>>   dog/vdi.c |    8 ++++----
>>>>   1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/dog/vdi.c b/dog/vdi.c
>>>> index 58d4a12..0920936 100644
>>>> --- a/dog/vdi.c
>>>> +++ b/dog/vdi.c
>>>> @@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ static int vdi_create(int argc, char **argv)
>>>>   	max_idx = DIV_ROUND_UP(size, object_size);
>>>>
>>>>   	for (idx = 0; idx < max_idx; idx++) {
>>>> -		vdi_show_progress(idx * object_size, inode->vdi_size);
>>>> +		vdi_show_progress((uint64_t)idx * object_size, inode->vdi_size);
>>>
>>> How about making the idx as uint64_t in the definition and comment that why we
>>> need unit64_t for it. This would save us from casting everywhere.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Yuan
>>
>> Hi Yuan. thank you for your comment.
>>
>> I think idx is also used to manage upper limit of the data objects per VDI.
>> In the current specification, the upper limit of the object number is 32bit.
>
> Yes, this is why we define idx as unit32_t. But we have assure this by a for
> loop and guarde idx by max_idx. And to avoid confusion in the future, so I
> suggested to add a comment why make it as uint64_t instead of uint32_t.
>
>>
>> so I think scary side effects if change this definition to uint64_t.
>>
>> What do you think about.
>
> Yes, we might risk it the possible side effect in the future, but I hope the
> comment and max_idx can help us avoid the side effect.
>
> Anyway, if you insist on the approach of your patch, I can apply it since it is
> a valid fix. Do you?
>
> Thanks
> Yuan
>

Hi, Yuan.

I get it. I post the patch v2 in your proposal.

Regards, Saeki.