Am 13.02.2018 um 21:27 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > We are gradually moving away from sector-based interfaces, towards > byte-based. Update the vvfat driver accordingly. Note that we > can rely on the block driver having already clamped limits to our > block size, and simplify accordingly. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> > Reviewed-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> > > --- > v5-v7: no change > v4: rebase to interface tweak > v3: no change > v2: rebase to earlier changes, simplify > --- > block/vvfat.c | 16 +++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/block/vvfat.c b/block/vvfat.c > index 7e06ebacf61..4a17a49e128 100644 > --- a/block/vvfat.c > +++ b/block/vvfat.c > @@ -3088,15 +3088,13 @@ vvfat_co_pwritev(BlockDriverState *bs, uint64_t > offset, uint64_t bytes, > return ret; > } > > -static int64_t coroutine_fn vvfat_co_get_block_status(BlockDriverState *bs, > - int64_t sector_num, int nb_sectors, int *n, BlockDriverState **file) > +static int coroutine_fn vvfat_co_block_status(BlockDriverState *bs, > + bool want_zero, int64_t offset, > + int64_t bytes, int64_t *n, > + int64_t *map, > + BlockDriverState **file) > { > - *n = bs->total_sectors - sector_num; > - if (*n > nb_sectors) { > - *n = nb_sectors; > - } else if (*n < 0) { > - return 0; > - } > + *n = bytes; > return BDRV_BLOCK_DATA; > }
Preexisting, but this is inconsistent with other protocol drivers as far as OFFSET_VALID is concerned (as I hinted in another mail, I like it better this way, but it's still inconsistent). Do we actually need any callback here or could the solution be to simply remove it like with nvme? Kevin