Re: [PATCH] block/copy-before-write: use uint64_t for timeout in nanoseconds

Am 03.06.2024 um 16:45 hat Fiona Ebner geschrieben: > Am 28.05.24 um 18:06 schrieb Kevin Wolf: > > Am 29.04.2024 um 16:19 hat Fiona Ebner geschrieben: > >> rather than the uint32_t for which the maximum is slightly more than 4 > >> seconds and larger values would overflow. The QAPI interface

Re: [PATCH] block/copy-before-write: use uint64_t for timeout in nanoseconds

Am 28.05.24 um 18:06 schrieb Kevin Wolf: > Am 29.04.2024 um 16:19 hat Fiona Ebner geschrieben: >> rather than the uint32_t for which the maximum is slightly more than 4 >> seconds and larger values would overflow. The QAPI interface allows >> specifying the number of seconds, so only values 0 to 4

Re: [PATCH] block/copy-before-write: use uint64_t for timeout in nanoseconds

Am 29.04.2024 um 16:19 hat Fiona Ebner geschrieben: > rather than the uint32_t for which the maximum is slightly more than 4 > seconds and larger values would overflow. The QAPI interface allows > specifying the number of seconds, so only values 0 to 4 are safe right > now, other values lead to a

Re: [PATCH] block/copy-before-write: use uint64_t for timeout in nanoseconds

Hi Fiona, On 29/4/24 16:19, Fiona Ebner wrote: Not everybody uses an email client that shows the patch content just after the subject (your first lines wasn't making sense at first). Simply duplicating the subject helps to understand: Use uint64_t for timeout in nanoseconds ... rather

Re: [PATCH] block/copy-before-write: use uint64_t for timeout in nanoseconds

On 29.04.24 17:46, Fiona Ebner wrote: Am 29.04.24 um 16:36 schrieb Philippe Mathieu-Daudé: Hi Fiona, On 29/4/24 16:19, Fiona Ebner wrote: Not everybody uses an email client that shows the patch content just after the subject (your first lines wasn't making sense at first). Simply duplicating

Re: [PATCH] block/copy-before-write: use uint64_t for timeout in nanoseconds

Am 29.04.24 um 16:36 schrieb Philippe Mathieu-Daudé: > Hi Fiona, > > On 29/4/24 16:19, Fiona Ebner wrote: > > Not everybody uses an email client that shows the patch content just > after the subject (your first lines wasn't making sense at first). > > Simply duplicating the subject helps to

[PATCH] block/copy-before-write: use uint64_t for timeout in nanoseconds

rather than the uint32_t for which the maximum is slightly more than 4 seconds and larger values would overflow. The QAPI interface allows specifying the number of seconds, so only values 0 to 4 are safe right now, other values lead to a much lower timeout than a user expects. The block_copy()