On 02.02.2017 09:52, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Wed 01 Feb 2017 11:16:38 PM CET, Max Reitz wrote:
>
>> Thanks, applied to my block tree, with
>> %s/INT_MAX/BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES/g:
>
> I think you can use %d to print BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES, after all the
> definition guarantees that it won't be
On Wed 01 Feb 2017 11:16:38 PM CET, Max Reitz wrote:
> Thanks, applied to my block tree, with
> %s/INT_MAX/BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES/g:
I think you can use %d to print BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES, after all the
definition guarantees that it won't be larger than MIN(SIZE_MAX,INT_MAX)
But it's fine with
On 31.01.2017 17:09, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> Passing a request size larger than INT_MAX to any of the I/O commands
> results in an error. While 'read' and 'write' handle the error
> correctly, 'aio_read' and 'aio_write' hit an assertion:
>
> blk_aio_read_entry: Assertion `rwco->qiov->size == acb->
On Wed 01 Feb 2017 10:36:20 PM CET, Max Reitz wrote:
>> +if (count > INT_MAX - len) {
>
> How about using BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES instead?
>
> (not yet in master, just in my block branch)
Sounds good to me, feel free to edit my patch directly.
Berto
On 31.01.2017 17:09, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> Passing a request size larger than INT_MAX to any of the I/O commands
> results in an error. While 'read' and 'write' handle the error
> correctly, 'aio_read' and 'aio_write' hit an assertion:
>
> blk_aio_read_entry: Assertion `rwco->qiov->size == acb->
On 31.01.2017 19:11, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Tue 31 Jan 2017 05:41:23 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote:
>
Ideally, it would be nice to fix the block layer to allow larger
requests (since we already have code to auto-fragment down to device
limits, we should be able to rely on that code
On Tue 31 Jan 2017 05:41:23 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> Ideally, it would be nice to fix the block layer to allow larger
>>> requests (since we already have code to auto-fragment down to device
>>> limits, we should be able to rely on that code instead of having to
>>> duplicate artificial cons
On 01/31/2017 10:36 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Tue 31 Jan 2017 05:31:32 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote:
>
>> Ideally, it would be nice to fix the block layer to allow larger
>> requests (since we already have code to auto-fragment down to device
>> limits, we should be able to rely on that code inst
On 01/31/2017 10:09 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> Passing a request size larger than INT_MAX to any of the I/O commands
> results in an error. While 'read' and 'write' handle the error
> correctly, 'aio_read' and 'aio_write' hit an assertion:
>
> blk_aio_read_entry: Assertion `rwco->qiov->size == ac
On Tue 31 Jan 2017 05:31:32 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote:
> Ideally, it would be nice to fix the block layer to allow larger
> requests (since we already have code to auto-fragment down to device
> limits, we should be able to rely on that code instead of having to
> duplicate artificial constraints e
Passing a request size larger than INT_MAX to any of the I/O commands
results in an error. While 'read' and 'write' handle the error
correctly, 'aio_read' and 'aio_write' hit an assertion:
blk_aio_read_entry: Assertion `rwco->qiov->size == acb->bytes' failed.
The reason is that the QEMU I/O code
11 matches
Mail list logo
