From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56546) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uyz3O-0002md-HH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 02:48:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uyz3L-0003WJ-Am for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 02:48:06 -0400 Received: from mx.ipv6.kamp.de ([2a02:248:0:51::16]:50278 helo=mx01.kamp.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uyz3K-0003W0-Vh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 02:48:03 -0400 Message-ID: <51E4EC9C.70602@kamp.de> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:47:56 +0200 From: Peter Lieven MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1372862071-28225-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1372862071-28225-17-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1372862071-28225-17-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 16/17] block: add default get_block_status implementation for protocols List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com On 03.07.2013 16:34, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Protocols return raw data, so you can assume the offsets to pass > through unchanged. > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > --- > block.c | 6 +++++- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/block.c b/block.c > index cd371cd..ff8ced7 100644 > --- a/block.c > +++ b/block.c > @@ -2977,7 +2977,11 @@ static int64_t coroutine_fn bdrv_co_get_block_status(BlockDriverState *bs, > > if (!bs->drv->bdrv_co_get_block_status) { > *pnum = nb_sectors; > - return BDRV_BLOCK_DATA; > + ret = BDRV_BLOCK_DATA; > + if (bs->drv->protocol_name) { > + ret |= BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_VALID | (sector_num * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE); > + } > + return ret; > } > > ret = bs->drv->bdrv_co_get_block_status(bs, sector_num, nb_sectors, pnum); I am curious if this is right. Doesn't this mean we say that at offset sector_num * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE are nb_sectors of linear data? This is something we do not know for sure. Peter