On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:50:53AM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 06:05:07PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > If the return type will be ignored by most applications, I don't see
> > what the problem is.
>
> There is no problem. My longish reaction was mostly because you used
> "future proofing", that gave the impression that you did not know
> what this is about.
>
> > (like an obviously wrong truncation)
>
> No, the code I wrote was optimal.
> If you have 16 bits and the value is 70000, I prefer returning
> 65535 over 4464.

Why didn't you write is as patch?  James, this in Andries code
in patch from, it get's rid of the ugly sector_div so it should
be in if not just because of that.