From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37659)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1VTWWd-0007OV-Cu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:36:37 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1VTWWX-0001Jy-4i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:36:31 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33494)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1VTWWW-0001Ju-TI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:36:25 -0400
Message-ID: <5253FC3D.9050704@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 14:36:13 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1381125551-24354-1-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de>
	<52527015.4090103@redhat.com> <5253F514.2050101@kamp.de>
In-Reply-To: <5253F514.2050101@kamp.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv5] block/get_block_status: avoid redundant
 callouts on raw devices
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: Peter Lieven <pl@kamp.de>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws, stefanha@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, ronniesahlberg@gmail.com

Il 08/10/2013 14:05, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
>> Strictly speaking, this should probably do something like this:
>>
>>    assert(ret & BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_VALID);
>>    return bdrv_get_block_status(bs->file, ret >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS,
>>                                 nb_sectors, pnum);
> shouldn't the last line be:
> 
>   return bdrv_get_block_status(bs->file, ret >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS,
>                                *pnum, pnum);
> 
> 
> This would of course require *pnum = nb_sectors in raw_co_get_block_status
> ?

Yes for both questions.

Paolo