From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753434AbbC3Tie (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:38:34 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:33096 "EHLO mail-wg0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753208AbbC3Tib (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:38:31 -0400 From: Rasmus Villemoes To: Mike Snitzer Cc: Andrew Morton , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , "Martin K. Petersen" , device-mapper development , Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lib/lcm.c: lcm(n,0)=lcm(0,n) is 0, not n Organization: D03 References: <1418158984-25546-1-git-send-email-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> <1418158984-25546-2-git-send-email-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> X-Hashcash: 1:20:150330:snitzer@redhat.com::fcsr4ehOoTYHKpm6:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000179S X-Hashcash: 1:20:150330:akpm@linux-foundation.org::RPCvrrlEsToXgRF7:0000000000000000000000000000000000001gJb X-Hashcash: 1:20:150330:martin.petersen@oracle.com::EMQeeDyJvjcq+TAv:0000000000000000000000000000000000025nL X-Hashcash: 1:20:150330:axboe@kernel.dk::x8poQDi9j9nnWFl/:002JKV X-Hashcash: 1:20:150330:linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org::CFH5EDSfFtdsSm5W:0000000000000000000000000000000008cBd X-Hashcash: 1:20:150330:dm-devel@redhat.com::Nh1rlb7JGgo0FiB7:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000009lr0 Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:38:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Mike Snitzer's message of "Sat, 28 Mar 2015 22:44:28 -0400") Message-ID: <87y4me8edo.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Mar 29 2015, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Rasmus Villemoes > wrote: >> Return the mathematically correct answer when an argument is 0. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes > > This change is the source of 3.19 regression for stacking device > limits, via commit 69c953c ("lib/lcm.c: lcm(n,0)=lcm(0,n) is 0, not > n"). > > > Rasmus, mathematical purity of lcm() aside, it'd have been nice if you > looked at the lcm() callers to determine whether you'd be breaking > them. I'm sorry about this. I thought I did check the callers, but evidently not well enough. Rasmus