On 07/03/2017 10:10 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > Thanks to recent cleanups, most callers were scaling a return value > of sectors into bytes (the exception, in qcow2-bitmap, will be > converted to byte-based iteration later). Update the interface to > do the scaling internally instead. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
> @@ -506,7 +506,7 @@ void bdrv_dirty_iter_free(BdrvDirtyBitmapIter *iter)
>
> int64_t bdrv_dirty_iter_next(BdrvDirtyBitmapIter *iter)
> {
> - return hbitmap_iter_next(&iter->hbi);
> + return hbitmap_iter_next(&iter->hbi) * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE;
> }
>
> +++ b/block/qcow2-bitmap.c
> @@ -1105,7 +1105,7 @@ static uint64_t *store_bitmap_data(BlockDriverState *bs,
> sbc = limit >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS;
> assert(DIV_ROUND_UP(bm_size, limit) == tb_size);
>
> - while ((sector = bdrv_dirty_iter_next(dbi)) != -1) {
> + while ((sector = bdrv_dirty_iter_next(dbi) >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS) != -1) {
Does clang's sanitizer complain about right shift of a negative number,
or is that one of the things that we can rely on even though C says it
is not strictly portable? If it is a problem, I can always split the
check for bdrv_dirty_iter_next()<0 to occur separately from the while()
conditional; but I'd rather not go through with the churn unless it
actually chokes a build-bot as written.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
