On 05.11.20 16:51, Eric Blake wrote:
Back in 2015, we attempted to fix error reporting for images that
claimed to have more than INT64_MAX/512 sectors, but due to the type
promotions caused by BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE being unsigned, this
inadvertently forces all negative ret values to be slammed into -E
On Thu 05 Nov 2020 04:51:22 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote:
> Back in 2015, we attempted to fix error reporting for images that
> claimed to have more than INT64_MAX/512 sectors, but due to the type
> promotions caused by BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE being unsigned, this
> inadvertently forces all negative ret value
Back in 2015, we attempted to fix error reporting for images that
claimed to have more than INT64_MAX/512 sectors, but due to the type
promotions caused by BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE being unsigned, this
inadvertently forces all negative ret values to be slammed into -EFBIG
rather than the original error. W
