From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: fio max blocksize References: <15f67a56-7f53-cfca-f4e6-289e1d6c2b14@kernel.dk> <4c57a31e-7955-d0b2-ed27-9d494f090651@kernel.dk> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 13:38:04 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Jeff Furlong , "fio@vger.kernel.org" List-ID: On 7/12/18 1:11 PM, Jeff Furlong wrote: >> Basically the unsigned int version should just be a subset of the >> ull, with the min/max settings things would just work out nicely. > > So the idea is to share the same case statement for both, not > introduce unique case statements for UL and ULL, right? Right, it's just converting (if needed) the general case to be ull based. See how FIO_OPT_INT is basically the same as FIO_OPT_STR_VAL. You might need to add an implicit knowledge that the uint based options have an implied maxval of UINT_MAX, if maxval isn't set, to avoid cases where we can parse much larger values than a particular option may be able to store. -- Jens Axboe