qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv5 5/6] block/iscsi: limit to INT_MAX throughout


From: Max Reitz
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv5 5/6] block/iscsi: limit to INT_MAX throughout iscsi_refresh_limits
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:38:43 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0

On 2014-10-27 at 09:35, Peter Lieven wrote:
On 27.10.2014 09:32, Max Reitz wrote:
On 2014-10-25 at 18:18, Peter Lieven wrote:
As Max pointed out there is a hidden cast from int64_t to int.
So use the newly introduced nb_sectors_lun2qemu for all
limits.

Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven <address@hidden>
---
  block/iscsi.c |   20 ++++++++++----------
  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/iscsi.c b/block/iscsi.c
index 1ae4add..85131b7 100644
--- a/block/iscsi.c
+++ b/block/iscsi.c
@@ -1468,23 +1468,23 @@ static void iscsi_refresh_limits(BlockDriverState *bs, Error **errp)
        if (iscsilun->lbp.lbpu) {
          if (iscsilun->bl.max_unmap < 0xffffffff) {
- bs->bl.max_discard = sector_lun2qemu(iscsilun->bl.max_unmap,
-                                                 iscsilun);
+ bs->bl.max_discard = nb_sectors_lun2qemu(iscsilun->bl.max_unmap,
+ iscsilun);
          }
- bs->bl.discard_alignment = sector_lun2qemu(iscsilun->bl.opt_unmap_gran,
-                                                   iscsilun);
+ bs->bl.discard_alignment = nb_sectors_lun2qemu(iscsilun->bl.opt_unmap_gran,
+ iscsilun);

This looks wrong. I think an alignment should always be a power of two. The function however may return the unaligned INT_MAX. I think it should be capped to something like INT_MAX / 2 + 1 or just simply written out 0x40000000.

Good point, I would cap all limits to the highest power of two and use INT_MAX / 2 + 1 directly in nb_sectors_lun2qemu?

Seems good enough. I'd just like a comment in that function why you're doing that (in order to limit both alignments and "normal" lengths properly).

I'm counting on nobody noticing that INT_MAX may be something different than 2^x - 1. *g*

Max

Peter


      }
        if (iscsilun->bl.max_ws_len < 0xffffffff) {
- bs->bl.max_write_zeroes = sector_lun2qemu(iscsilun->bl.max_ws_len,
-                                                  iscsilun);
+ bs->bl.max_write_zeroes = nb_sectors_lun2qemu(iscsilun->bl.max_ws_len,
+ iscsilun);
      }
      if (iscsilun->lbp.lbpws) {
- bs->bl.write_zeroes_alignment = sector_lun2qemu(iscsilun->bl.opt_unmap_gran,
- iscsilun);
+ bs->bl.write_zeroes_alignment = nb_sectors_lun2qemu(iscsilun->bl.opt_unmap_gran,
+ iscsilun);

Same here.

      }
- bs->bl.opt_transfer_length = sector_lun2qemu(iscsilun->bl.opt_xfer_len,
-                                                 iscsilun);
+ bs->bl.opt_transfer_length = nb_sectors_lun2qemu(iscsilun->bl.opt_xfer_len,
+ iscsilun);
  }
/* Since iscsi_open() ignores bdrv_flags, there is nothing to do here in

Max






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]