On Tue, 07/29 13:51, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 09:00:43AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > > On Mon, 07/28 16:11, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 04:49:22PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > > > > + if (!bs->backing_hd) { > > > > + memset(whole_grain, 0, skip_start_sector << BDRV_SECTOR_BITS); > > > > + memset(whole_grain + (skip_end_sector << BDRV_SECTOR_BITS), 0, > > > > + cluster_bytes - (skip_end_sector << BDRV_SECTOR_BITS)); > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + assert(skip_end_sector <= sector_num + extent->cluster_sectors); > > > > > > Does this assertion make sense? skip_end_sector is a small number of > > > sectors (relative to start of cluster), while sector_num + > > > extent->cluster_sectors is a large absolute sector offset. > > > > skip_end_sector is absolute sector number too. The caller hunk in this patch > > is: > > I disagree.
You are right, I totally misread when replying. Will respin to fix the assertion and also the spellings. Thanks for reviewing and explaining my mistake :) Fam