On Mon 13 Feb 2017 06:13:38 PM CET, Max Reitz wrote: >>> -#define BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_SECTORS MIN(SIZE_MAX >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS, \ >>> - INT_MAX >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS) >>> -#define BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES (BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_SECTORS << >>> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS) >>> +#define BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES MIN(SIZE_MAX, INT_MAX) >>> +#define BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_SECTORS (BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES >> >>> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS) >> >> I'm just pointing it out because I don't know if this can cause >> problems, but this patch would make BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES not a >> multiple of the sector size (INT_MAX is actually a prime number). > > Very good point. I don't think this could be an issue, though. For one > thing, the use of BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES is very limited.
Ok, but then I wonder what's the benefit of increasing BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES. Berto
