Am 14.06.2016 um 16:47 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On 06/14/2016 02:05 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
> static void raw_refresh_limits(BlockDriverState *bs, Error **errp)
> {
> +/* Inherit all limits except for request_alignment */
> +int request_alignment = bs->bl.request
On 06/14/2016 02:05 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
static void raw_refresh_limits(BlockDriverState *bs, Error **errp)
{
+/* Inherit all limits except for request_alignment */
+int request_alignment = bs->bl.request_alignment;
+
bs->bl = bs->file->bs->bl;
+
Am 14.06.2016 um 06:39 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On 06/07/2016 04:08 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
> >> Found it; squash this in (or use it as an argument why we don't want
> >> request_alignment in bs->bl after all):
> >
> > This hunk doesn't make sense to me. For the correctness of the code it
>
On 06/07/2016 04:08 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Found it; squash this in (or use it as an argument why we don't want
>> request_alignment in bs->bl after all):
>
> This hunk doesn't make sense to me. For the correctness of the code it
> shouldn't make a difference whether the alignment happens befor
Am 03.06.2016 um 19:03 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> It makes more sense to have ALL block size limit constraints
> in the same struct. Improve the documentation while at it.
>
> Note that bdrv_refresh_limits() has to keep things alive across
> a memset() of BlockLimits.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric
Am 07.06.2016 um 13:04 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
> On 07/06/2016 12:08, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >>> > > Something in this patch is causing qemu-iotests 77 to infloop; we may
> >>> > > decide it is just easier to drop this patch rather than find all the
> >>> > > places where the request_alignment
On 07/06/2016 12:08, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> > > Something in this patch is causing qemu-iotests 77 to infloop; we may
>>> > > decide it is just easier to drop this patch rather than find all the
>>> > > places where the request_alignment must be preserved across what
>>> > > otherwise zeroes out l
Am 03.06.2016 um 23:43 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On 06/03/2016 11:49 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 06/03/2016 11:03 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> It makes more sense to have ALL block size limit constraints
> >> in the same struct. Improve the documentation while at it.
> >>
> >> Note that bdrv_re
On 06/03/2016 11:49 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/03/2016 11:03 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> It makes more sense to have ALL block size limit constraints
>> in the same struct. Improve the documentation while at it.
>>
>> Note that bdrv_refresh_limits() has to keep things alive across
>> a memset() of
On 06/03/2016 11:03 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> It makes more sense to have ALL block size limit constraints
> in the same struct. Improve the documentation while at it.
>
> Note that bdrv_refresh_limits() has to keep things alive across
> a memset() of BlockLimits.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake
>
It makes more sense to have ALL block size limit constraints
in the same struct. Improve the documentation while at it.
Note that bdrv_refresh_limits() has to keep things alive across
a memset() of BlockLimits.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake
---
include/block/block_int.h | 12
block.c
11 matches
Mail list logo
