From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] virtio_blk: check for hardsector size from host
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 10:12:55 +0200
Message-ID: <20080529081255.GO25504@kernel.dk>
References: <200805271105.00077.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <200805291804.11550.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([87.55.233.238]:2011 "EHLO kernel.dk"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751696AbYE2IM5 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 29 May 2008 04:12:57 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200805291804.11550.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, May 29 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 May 2008 19:04:59 Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > Rusty, Jens,
> >
> > I need your opinion on the following patch. It seems to work, but I would
> > like to get some feedback if this patch is the right approach:
> 
> Looks like the right approach to me.  Don't know about the block side
> of it...

Looks good to me, definitely an improvement for eg loop backed
storage.

> Just that u64 seems like overkill: u32?

Definitely, u32 would be just fine, u64 is way overkill :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe