From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39286 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OHzvQ-0005Ae-RV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 09:48:38 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1OHzvP-0002MP-Ht
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 09:48:36 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23988)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1OHzvP-0002MH-B8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 09:48:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4BFFC99C.50008@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:48:12 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] Cleanups for block code
References: <1274970033-24093-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1274970033-24093-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
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.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: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 27.05.2010 16:20, schrieb Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com:
> From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Reading through some of the blk code, I noticed a lot of cases where
> we mix and match between hard-coded values for the block size of 512
> and using BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE. Trying to clean it up a bit and change the
> 512 constants to BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE as it is more explaning when reading
> the code.
> 
> In addition it fixes up a case in bdrv_open where we did the division,
> just to multiply back to the original value for no real reason.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jes
> 
> 
> Jes Sorensen (4):
>   Cleanup: bdrv_open() no need to shift total_size just to shift back.
>   Cleanup: Be consistent and use BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE instead of 512
>   Cleanup: raw-posix.c: Be more consistent using BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE
>     instead of 512
>   Cleanup: virtio-blk.c: Be more consistent using BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE
>     instead

Thanks, applied all to the block branch.

Kevin