On 06/08/2016 08:10 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> > --- > block/io.c | 13 +++++-------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c > index 2fd88cb..4af9c59 100644 > --- a/block/io.c > +++ b/block/io.c > @@ -1241,11 +1241,9 @@ static int coroutine_fn > bdrv_aligned_pwritev(BlockDriverState *bs, > bool waited; > int ret; > > - int64_t sector_num = offset >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS; > - unsigned int nb_sectors = bytes >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS; > + int64_t start_sector = offset >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS; > + int64_t end_sector = DIV_ROUND_UP(offset + bytes, BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE); > > - assert((offset & (BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE - 1)) == 0); > - assert((bytes & (BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
I wonder if we should add an 'unsigned int align' parameter to this
function, to mirror bdrv_aligned_preadv() - that way, we can assert that
any divisions we do based on 'align' are indeed aligned. If we do that,
then just as in the previous patch, I think we would want to keep
'assert((offset & (align - 1)) == 0)'. But at the moment, I don't see
any divisions based on align, so I think you are okay.
> if (ret >= 0) {
> - bs->total_sectors = MAX(bs->total_sectors, sector_num + nb_sectors);
> + bs->total_sectors = MAX(bs->total_sectors, end_sector);
Someday, we may want bs->total_bytes instead of total_sectors, but
unrelated to this patch.
Looks clean:
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
