Re: [PATCH v6 07/11] block: use int64_t instead of int in driver write_zeroes handlers

2021-09-23 Thread Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
23.09.2021 23:33, Eric Blake wrote: On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 01:28:03PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: We are generally moving to int64_t for both offset and bytes parameters on all io paths. Main motivation is realization of 64-bit write_zeroes operation for fast zeroing large disk

Re: [PATCH v6 07/11] block: use int64_t instead of int in driver write_zeroes handlers

2021-09-23 Thread Eric Blake
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 03:33:45PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > > +++ b/block/nbd.c > > @@ -1407,15 +1407,17 @@ static int nbd_client_co_pwritev(BlockDriverState > > *bs, int64_t offset, > > } > > > > static int nbd_client_co_pwrite_zeroes(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t > > offset, > > -

Re: [PATCH v6 07/11] block: use int64_t instead of int in driver write_zeroes handlers

2021-09-23 Thread Eric Blake
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 01:28:03PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > We are generally moving to int64_t for both offset and bytes parameters > on all io paths. > > Main motivation is realization of 64-bit write_zeroes operation for > fast zeroing large disk chunks, up to the whole disk.

[PATCH v6 07/11] block: use int64_t instead of int in driver write_zeroes handlers

2021-09-03 Thread Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
We are generally moving to int64_t for both offset and bytes parameters on all io paths. Main motivation is realization of 64-bit write_zeroes operation for fast zeroing large disk chunks, up to the whole disk. We chose signed type, to be consistent with off_t (which is signed) and with possibili