Am 15.02.2017 um 14:42 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: > 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.
Whatever way we want to write it, I think MAX_BYTES = MAX_SECTORS * 512 should be a given. Everything else is bound to confuse people and introduce bugs sooner or later. Kevin
pgpg_jNKl4gka.pgp
Description: PGP signature
