On 14.02.2017 10:52, Alberto Garcia wrote: > On Mon 13 Feb 2017 06:13:38 PM CET, Max Reitz wrote: > >>>> -#define BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_SECTORS MIN(SIZE_MAX >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS, \ >>>> - INT_MAX >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS) >>>> -#define BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES (BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_SECTORS << >>>> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS) >>>> +#define BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES MIN(SIZE_MAX, INT_MAX) >>>> +#define BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_SECTORS (BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES >> >>>> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS) >>> >>> I'm just pointing it out because I don't know if this can cause >>> problems, but this patch would make BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES not a >>> multiple of the sector size (INT_MAX is actually a prime number). >> >> Very good point. I don't think this could be an issue, though. For one >> thing, the use of BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES is very limited. > > Ok, but then I wonder what's the benefit of increasing > BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES.
The benefit is that the definition looks cleaner. Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
