From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56704)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1aNuQj-00004x-Sb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:36:34 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1aNuQi-0000gs-Rb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:36:33 -0500
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:36:23 +0800
From: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160126033623.GC23224@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <1453689887-2567-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
	<1453689887-2567-2-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
	<20160125130437.GE5154@noname.redhat.com>
	<20160126032716.GB23224@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160126032716.GB23224@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v8 01/15] block: Add "file" output
 parameter to block status query functions
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, mreitz@redhat.com

On Tue, 01/26 11:27, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Mon, 01/25 14:04, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 25.01.2016 um 03:44 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> > > diff --git a/block/vvfat.c b/block/vvfat.c
> > > index 2ea5a4a..b8d29e1 100644
> > > --- a/block/vvfat.c
> > > +++ b/block/vvfat.c
> > > @@ -2884,7 +2884,7 @@ static coroutine_fn int vvfat_co_write(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t sector_num,
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  static int64_t coroutine_fn vvfat_co_get_block_status(BlockDriverState *bs,
> > > -	int64_t sector_num, int nb_sectors, int* n)
> > > +	int64_t sector_num, int nb_sectors, int *n, BlockDriverState **file)
> > >  {
> > >      BDRVVVFATState* s = bs->opaque;
> > >      *n = s->sector_count - sector_num;
> > 
> > This still returns NULL at the end of the series. Shouldn't it return bs
> > like other protocol drivers do?
> 
> Yes, we need another patch for vvfat.

No, I now remember why vvfat didn't need a patch: it never sets the
BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_VALID bit.

Fam