On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 12:05:55PM +0100, Alberto Faria wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:00 AM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > Maybe let the existing bdrv_check_request32() call in bdrv_co_preadv()
in bdrv_co_preadv_part()
> > check this? It returns -EIO if bytes is too large.
>
> I'd be okay wit
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:00 AM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Maybe let the existing bdrv_check_request32() call in bdrv_co_preadv()
> check this? It returns -EIO if bytes is too large.
I'd be okay with that. Does this warrant changing blk_co_pread() and
blk_co_pwrite() as well?
Eric, what do you th
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 03:48:36PM +0100, Alberto Faria wrote:
> For consistency with other I/O functions, and in preparation to
> implement bdrv_{pread,pwrite}() using generated_co_wrapper.
>
> unsigned int fits in int64_t, so all callers remain correct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alberto Faria
> ---
>
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 03:48:36PM +0100, Alberto Faria wrote:
> For consistency with other I/O functions, and in preparation to
> implement bdrv_{pread,pwrite}() using generated_co_wrapper.
>
> unsigned int fits in int64_t, so all callers remain correct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alberto Faria
> ---
>
For consistency with other I/O functions, and in preparation to
implement bdrv_{pread,pwrite}() using generated_co_wrapper.
unsigned int fits in int64_t, so all callers remain correct.
Signed-off-by: Alberto Faria
---
block/coroutines.h | 4 ++--
include/block/block_int-io.h | 8 +
