On 07/07/22 22:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 03:10:19PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
>> There's also a question of whether the error message when the
>> constraint fails is going to be legible enough to give the developer a
>> hint as to what they did wrong when they pass in
On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 03:10:19PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> There's also a question of whether the error message when the
> constraint fails is going to be legible enough to give the developer a
> hint as to what they did wrong when they pass in a non-array type; but
> I'm less worried about
On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 08:24:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 01:46:28PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> > I see that is now done as part of 0fa23df5c. While
> > include/array-size.h looks okay, I personally have a tough time with
> > include/compiler-macros.h
On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 01:54:55PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> > + if (S_ISREG (stat.st_mode)) /* Regular file. */
> > +return file_create (filename, fd,
> > +stat.st_size, (uint64_t) stat.st_blksize, false,
> > d);
>
> Is the cast to uint64_t actually needed?
No
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 05:43:57PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> You're not supposed to read or write NBD servers at a granularity less
> than the advertised minimum block size. nbdcopy has ignored this
> requirement, and this is usually fine because the NBD servers we care
> about support
On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 01:46:28PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> I see that is now done as part of 0fa23df5c. While
> include/array-size.h looks okay, I personally have a tough time with
> include/compiler-macros.h BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(expr). Every time I
> encounter a similarly-named macro in other
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 05:43:56PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> This will be used in a subsequent commit. At the moment the preferred
> block size for all sources / destinations is simply calculated and
> stored.
> ---
> copy/file-ops.c | 4 +++-
> copy/main.c | 29
On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 12:58:53PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 07/07/22 11:02, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Reported-by: Ming Xie
> > Fixes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2104720
> > ---
> I think it's time for us to introduce the ARRAY_SIZE macro.
>
> Can you do that first
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 05:43:55PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> v3 was:
> https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2022-June/029336.html
>
> v4 makes almost all of the recommended changes from Laszlo's reviews.
>
> I have dropped the third patch (the one which stablises
>
On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 12:58:53PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> I think it's time for us to introduce the ARRAY_SIZE macro.
Yeah I thought about that while I was writing the patch :-)
I'll do as you suggest, thanks.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat
On 07/07/22 11:02, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Reported-by: Ming Xie
> Fixes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2104720
> ---
> plugins/vddk/vddk.c | 31 ---
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/plugins/vddk/vddk.c
Reported-by: Ming Xie
Fixes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2104720
---
plugins/vddk/vddk.c | 31 ---
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/plugins/vddk/vddk.c b/plugins/vddk/vddk.c
index dbd3fdbe..1ed9fc53 100644
---
12 matches
Mail list logo
