On Wed, Mar 09, Olaf Hering wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > Removing integer overflow checks without removing the potentially > > overflowing operation doesn't feel like a particularly good idea, > > though. > > Why does the code use signed ints anyway for sectors and offset?!
Until this underlying bug is fixed a change like this works for me: diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c index a69bfc4..df1e383 100644 --- a/block/io.c +++ b/block/io.c @@ -2464,7 +2464,7 @@ static void coroutine_fn bdrv_discard_co_entry(void *opaque) rwco->ret = bdrv_co_discard(rwco->bs, rwco->sector_num, rwco->nb_sectors); } -int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_discard(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t sector_num, +static int __bdrv_co_discard(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t sector_num, int nb_sectors) { BdrvTrackedRequest req; @@ -2546,6 +2546,26 @@ out: return ret; } +int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_discard(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t sector_num, + int nb_sectors) +{ + int num, ret; + int limit = BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_SECTORS; + int remaining = nb_sectors; + int64_t sector_offset = sector_num; + + do { + num = remaining > limit ? limit : remaining; + ret = __bdrv_co_discard(bs, sector_offset, num); + if (ret < 0) + break; + remaining -= num; + sector_offset += num; + } while (remaining > 0); + + return ret; +} + int bdrv_discard(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t sector_num, int nb_sectors) { Coroutine *co; Olaf