From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Bader Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen-blk(front|back): Handle large physical sector disks Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 11:26:25 +0200 Message-ID: <519354C1.9010705@canonical.com> References: <5191272A.7070703@canonical.com> <51920C4B02000078000D5D9F@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5874888527351880752==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51920C4B02000078000D5D9F@nat28.tlf.novell.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: Jan Beulich Cc: xen-devel , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , roger.pau@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --===============5874888527351880752== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig7BF0C5380D160C0E0B2A1F0B" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig7BF0C5380D160C0E0B2A1F0B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 14.05.2013 10:04, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 13.05.13 at 19:47, Stefan Bader wrot= e: >> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c >> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c >> @@ -704,6 +704,13 @@ again: >> dev->nodename); >> goto abort; >> } >> + err =3D 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; >=20 > 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 wond= ering (and sorry for being thick headed here) why would a failure here be diffe= rent in severity for an extension or not. Is that not just adding an element to t= he xenstore object and failure would not be related to this being an extensi= on? >=20 > Beyond that the patch looks good to me. >=20 > Jan >=20 --------------enig7BF0C5380D160C0E0B2A1F0B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJRk1TBAAoJEOhnXe7L7s6jXFIQAMXTYrrHv8fTaXHEX9Aya2aR J4GE7CEPe5vqIDjig2z6OSTncwuaaNi9LpMIKlzPVKZLGewb0bL9XemYjGSbbYRM Mk9u0YbbTcPTKKJhlh6xBpyWerZY0/4G0W/7aoi1ynnEg6R6+KgtIqUOxFXfv11L aOHrOZhv+vfBo2mwaeLVpVoM+1iRgkWxQd5FRp8MCe0nwu17QrQL9AQPcSvDFano iPFmTDSk56Iahh6vuGNj/o5oh8aw9pxIdtJuGWy5/qV6qYSd/W3UJUxaKAgKJmsj ARxo4EfRJI4IxlsK+UTSNA8wUPkRDEomQ6KqkIo/w2rBzpdgVK4wmqqsuYftiUqP ffx8AZTzNEhIGf27bfj90ajq6g5pUFMraLygjuICkO1St/E2KAr8KiXrUCfvOtjH X7EaAufzV4Qe19VwePXeKpN5PQSf4/xEFdurWEcWpDT6Hm2GJu3qA3Lpsgd6Jt2A o5exaRy7p6aBLz+vSbmpnVb1MPQDduTVmZprHZRTqKtYQvBOtIoSYn8l3PA9lRLK YT50mdAxBAYV4Y++OvEWg7v/+T5cgJKkIsZUmQS4J6U2pDkij9B4Si24Qm2zrNv/ LnxnPS73Q5uDu/pQueVLsL/urBlLe4AtwF3PdsQjB0PdAJN9YY9hxvtbPRCumDgO r+t7y6/+6UAgHWjURP7z =ADdK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig7BF0C5380D160C0E0B2A1F0B-- --===============5874888527351880752== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============5874888527351880752==--