From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54015)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1XC7W1-000604-V7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:32:36 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1XC7Vv-0001VI-Mm
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:32:29 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3488)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1XC7Vv-0001V5-Ep
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:32:23 -0400
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:32:42 +0800
From: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20140729133242.GD16854@T430.nay.redhat.com>
References: <1401180562-29680-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
	<1401180562-29680-3-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
	<20140728151110.GG13872@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
	<20140729010043.GA6544@T430.nay.redhat.com>
	<20140729125144.GA25860@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140729125144.GA25860@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 2/2] vmdk: Optimize cluster allocation
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: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, 07/29 13:51, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 09:00:43AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Mon, 07/28 16:11, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 04:49:22PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > +    if (!bs->backing_hd) {
> > > > +        memset(whole_grain, 0,  skip_start_sector << BDRV_SECTOR_BITS);
> > > > +        memset(whole_grain + (skip_end_sector << BDRV_SECTOR_BITS), 0,
> > > > +               cluster_bytes - (skip_end_sector << BDRV_SECTOR_BITS));
> > > > +    }
> > > > +
> > > > +    assert(skip_end_sector <= sector_num + extent->cluster_sectors);
> > > 
> > > Does this assertion make sense?  skip_end_sector is a small number of
> > > sectors (relative to start of cluster), while sector_num +
> > > extent->cluster_sectors is a large absolute sector offset.
> > 
> > skip_end_sector is absolute sector number too. The caller hunk in this patch
> > is:
> 
> I disagree.

You are right, I totally misread when replying. Will respin to fix the
assertion and also the spellings.

Thanks for reviewing and explaining my mistake :)

Fam