On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 05:41:33PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> > > > @@ -1899,7 +1899,7 @@ static int coroutine_fn
> > > > nbd_co_send_simple_reply(NBDClient *client,
> > > > NBDRequest *request,
> > > >
On 05.09.23 17:24, Eric Blake wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 07:15:04PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 29.08.23 20:58, Eric Blake wrote:
Widen the length field of NBDRequest to 64-bits, although we can
assert that all current uses are still under 32 bits: either because
of NBD_MA
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 07:15:04PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> On 29.08.23 20:58, Eric Blake wrote:
> > Widen the length field of NBDRequest to 64-bits, although we can
> > assert that all current uses are still under 32 bits: either because
> > of NBD_MAX_BUFFER_SIZE which is even
On 29.08.23 20:58, Eric Blake wrote:
Widen the length field of NBDRequest to 64-bits, although we can
assert that all current uses are still under 32 bits: either because
of NBD_MAX_BUFFER_SIZE which is even smaller (and where size_t can
still be appropriate, even on 32-bit platforms), or because
Widen the length field of NBDRequest to 64-bits, although we can
assert that all current uses are still under 32 bits: either because
of NBD_MAX_BUFFER_SIZE which is even smaller (and where size_t can
still be appropriate, even on 32-bit platforms), or because nothing
ever puts us into NBD_MODE_EXT
