From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NXXJA-0007Cl-SH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:57:04 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NXXJ6-0007B4-Sh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:57:04 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45489 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NXXJ6-0007Av-L9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:57:00 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27867)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1NXXJ6-00023G-8u
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:57:00 -0500
Message-ID: <4B56D32A.2090800@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:55:54 +0100
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/10] qcow2: Allow updating no refcounts
References: <1263816696-24122-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
	<1263816696-24122-9-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
	<20100119185328.GB31526@lst.de>
In-Reply-To: <20100119185328.GB31526@lst.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 19.01.2010 19:53, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
>>  #endif
>> -    if (length <= 0)
>> +    if (length < 0) {
>>          return -EINVAL;
>> +    }
>> +
>>      start = offset & ~(s->cluster_size - 1);
>>      last = (offset + length - 1) & ~(s->cluster_size - 1);
>>      for(cluster_offset = start; cluster_offset <= last;
> 
> So for legnth = 0, last will equal start and we'll never go through
> the loop.  But should we really bother with all the other work in the
> function or just return 0 early on?

I'm not a big fan of special-casing for no real reason ("all the other
work" basically is calculating start and last and skipping two ifs - and
length = 0 is an unusual case anyway), but if you really mind we can
change it.

Kevin