Am 05.07.2018 um 09:36 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> This matches the types used for bytes in the rest parts of block layer.
> In the case of bdrv_co_truncate, new_bytes can be the image size which
> probably doesn't fit in a 32 bit int.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com>
mark_request_serialising() has this:
unsigned int overlap_bytes = ROUND_UP(req->offset + req->bytes, align)
- overlap_offset;
There is also:
static bool tracked_request_overlaps(BdrvTrackedRequest *req,
int64_t offset, unsigned int bytes)
Don't these need to be uint64_t now as well?
> block/io.c | 2 +-
> include/block/block_int.h | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c
> index 3e00667a2a..443a8584c4 100644
> --- a/block/io.c
> +++ b/block/io.c
> @@ -587,7 +587,7 @@ static void tracked_request_end(BdrvTrackedRequest *req)
> static void tracked_request_begin(BdrvTrackedRequest *req,
> BlockDriverState *bs,
> int64_t offset,
> - unsigned int bytes,
> + uint64_t bytes,
> enum BdrvTrackedRequestType type)
> {
> *req = (BdrvTrackedRequest){
Should we assert that offset + bytes <= INT64_MAX? We make this
assumption in basically all of the calculations.
Kevin
