On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 09:08:38AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:06:28PM -0700, Daniel Verkamp wrote:
> > + range[n].flags = cpu_to_le32(flags);
> > + range[n].num_sectors = cpu_to_le32(num_sectors);
> > + range[n].sector = cpu_to_le64(sector);
> ...
> > +/* Discard/write zeroes range for each request. */
> > +struct virtio_blk_discard_write_zeroes {
> > + /* discard/write zeroes start sector */
> > + __virtio64 sector;
> > + /* number of discard/write zeroes sectors */
> > + __virtio32 num_sectors;
> > + /* flags for this range */
> > + __virtio32 flags;
>
> cpu_to_le32() is being used on __virtio32 fields instead of cpu_to_virtio32().
>
> From include/uapi/linux/virtio_types.h:
>
> /*
> * __virtio{16,32,64} have the following meaning:
> * - __u{16,32,64} for virtio devices in legacy mode, accessed in native
> endian
> * - __le{16,32,64} for standard-compliant virtio devices
> */
>
> From the VIRTIO specification:
>
> struct virtio_blk_discard_write_zeroes {
> le64 sector;
> le32 num_sectors;
> struct {
> le32 unmap:1;
> le32 reserved:31;
> } flags;
> };
>
>
> Since the VIRTIO spec says these fields are little-endian, I think these
> fields should be declared just __u32 and __u64 instead of __virtio32 and
> __virtio64.
>
> Stefan
__le32/__le64 rather?
