From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40564) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fb2Fw-0005Dl-JL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2018 07:17:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fb2Fs-0001qI-G3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2018 07:17:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 13:16:49 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20180705111649.GI3309@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180705073701.10558-1-famz@redhat.com> <20180705073701.10558-4-famz@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180705073701.10558-4-famz@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/9] block: Use uint64_t for BdrvTrackedRequest byte fields List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fam Zheng Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Max Reitz , Jeff Cody , Eric Blake , John Snow , Stefan Hajnoczi Am 05.07.2018 um 09:36 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > This matches the types used for bytes in the rest parts of block layer. > In the case of bdrv_co_truncate, new_bytes can be the image size which > probably doesn't fit in a 32 bit int. > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng mark_request_serialising() has this: unsigned int overlap_bytes = ROUND_UP(req->offset + req->bytes, align) - overlap_offset; There is also: static bool tracked_request_overlaps(BdrvTrackedRequest *req, int64_t offset, unsigned int bytes) Don't these need to be uint64_t now as well? > block/io.c | 2 +- > include/block/block_int.h | 4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c > index 3e00667a2a..443a8584c4 100644 > --- a/block/io.c > +++ b/block/io.c > @@ -587,7 +587,7 @@ static void tracked_request_end(BdrvTrackedRequest *req) > static void tracked_request_begin(BdrvTrackedRequest *req, > BlockDriverState *bs, > int64_t offset, > - unsigned int bytes, > + uint64_t bytes, > enum BdrvTrackedRequestType type) > { > *req = (BdrvTrackedRequest){ Should we assert that offset + bytes <= INT64_MAX? We make this assumption in basically all of the calculations. Kevin