From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51313)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <namei.unix@gmail.com>) id 1UUAjm-00007X-Q1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:00:32 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <namei.unix@gmail.com>) id 1UUAjl-0001vH-Aw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:00:30 -0400
Received: from mail-pd0-f174.google.com ([209.85.192.174]:33753)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <namei.unix@gmail.com>) id 1UUAjl-0001v4-3W
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:00:29 -0400
Received: by mail-pd0-f174.google.com with SMTP id y14so443625pdi.5
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5174E006.4090104@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:00:22 +0800
From: Liu Yuan <namei.unix@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1366285732-21694-1-git-send-email-namei.unix@gmail.com>
	<874nezf6ik.wl%morita.kazutaka@lab.ntt.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <874nezf6ik.wl%morita.kazutaka@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [sheepdog] [PATCH] sheepdog: implement
	.bdrv_co_is_allocated
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: MORITA Kazutaka <morita.kazutaka@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, sheepdog@lists.wpkg.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>

On 04/22/2013 02:01 PM, MORITA Kazutaka wrote:
> It looks better to use BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE .  I'd suggest preparing
> another patch to replace all the SECTOR_SIZE with BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE.
> 

Okay

>> > +                  end = start + (nb_sectors * SECTOR_SIZE) / SD_DATA_OBJ_SIZE;
> Using 'start' to calculate 'end' is wrong because 'start' may be
> rounded down.
> 

Good catch. Will updated it in v2

>> > +
>> > +    for (idx = start; idx <= end; idx++) {
>> > +        if (inode->data_vdi_id[idx] == 0) {
>> > +            break;
>> > +        }
>> > +    }
>> > +    if (idx == start) {
>> > +        *pnum = SD_DATA_OBJ_SIZE / SECTOR_SIZE;
> Isn't it better to set the longest length of the unallocated sectors?
> 

Good idea.

Thanks,
Yuan