From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38855 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OHv06-0007qd-GG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 04:33:10 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1OHv02-0000Cw-LP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 04:33:06 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41975)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1OHv02-0000CV-FE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 04:33:02 -0400
Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4S8X060030662
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 28 May 2010 04:33:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4BFF7FBA.7080201@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 10:32:58 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1274968015-23599-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
	<4BFE8148.90806@redhat.com> <4BFE91DD.5090409@redhat.com>
	<4BFE9343.1070500@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BFE9343.1070500@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] block.h: Make BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE 64 bit safe
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 05/27/2010 05:44 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >  Candidate for stable too?
> It should be safe to apply, but I didn't find any current users where
> the mask was applied in a way where it was causing problems. Not sure if
> you want the noise, or apply it as better safe than sorry?

The only use in fact is this:

         addr = qemu_get_be64(f);
         flags = addr & ~BDRV_SECTOR_MASK;

which is safe since the ~~ cancels to give back 511 again.  So 
nevermind, just asking.  If there are no bugs related to it it seems 
just as safe not to apply it.

Paolo