From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen-blk(front|back): Handle large physical sector disks Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:54:21 -0400 Message-ID: <20130515135421.GF15529@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <5191272A.7070703@canonical.com> <51920C4B02000078000D5D9F@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <519354C1.9010705@canonical.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <519354C1.9010705@canonical.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Stefan Bader Cc: xen-devel , Jan Beulich , roger.pau@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:26:25AM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote: > On 14.05.2013 10:04, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 13.05.13 at 19:47, Stefan Bader wrote: > >> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c > >> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c > >> @@ -704,6 +704,13 @@ again: > >> dev->nodename); > >> goto abort; > >> } > >> + err = xenbus_printf(xbt, dev->nodename, "physical-sector-size", "%u", > >> + bdev_physical_block_size(be->blkif->vbd.bdev)); > >> + if (err) { > >> + xenbus_dev_fatal(dev, err, "writing %s/physical-sector-size", > >> + dev->nodename); > >> + goto abort; > > > > Failure here should not be fatal (as with any other protocol > > extensions). > > So I suppose that should be xenbus_dev_error and no abort here. Just wondering Or dev_warn(&dev->dev). > (and sorry for being thick headed here) why would a failure here be different in > severity for an extension or not. Is that not just adding an element to the > xenstore object and failure would not be related to this being an extension? Doing a failure tears down the whole XenBus connection. We don't want that. > > > > > Beyond that the patch looks good to me. > > > > Jan > > > >