On 27.11.19 19:08, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > We have a lot of "chunk_end - start" invocations, let's switch to > bytes/cur_bytes scheme instead. > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> > --- > include/block/block-copy.h | 4 +-- > block/block-copy.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
[...]
> diff --git a/block/block-copy.c b/block/block-copy.c
> index 94e7e855ef..cc273b6cb8 100644
> --- a/block/block-copy.c
> +++ b/block/block-copy.c
[...]
> @@ -150,24 +150,26 @@ void block_copy_set_callbacks(
[...]
> static int coroutine_fn block_copy_do_copy(BlockCopyState *s,
> - int64_t start, int64_t end,
> + int64_t start, int64_t bytes,
I wonder whether it would make more sense to make some of these @bytes
parameters plain ints, because...
> bool zeroes, bool *error_is_read)
> {
> int ret;
> - int nbytes = MIN(end, s->len) - start;
> + int nbytes = MIN(start + bytes, s->len) - start;
...things like this look a bit dangerous now. So if the interface
already clearly shows that we’re always expecting something less than
INT_MAX, it might all be a bit clearer.
I’ll leave it up to you:
Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
