| Message ID | 20240429141934.442154-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | block/copy-before-write: use uint64_t for timeout in nanoseconds | expand |
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 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() call where this is used already takes a uint64_t for > the timeout, so no change required there. > > Fixes: 6db7fd1ca9 ("block/copy-before-write: implement cbw-timeout option") > Reported-by: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com> > Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> > --- > block/copy-before-write.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/block/copy-before-write.c b/block/copy-before-write.c > index 8aba27a71d..026fa9840f 100644 > --- a/block/copy-before-write.c > +++ b/block/copy-before-write.c > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ typedef struct BDRVCopyBeforeWriteState { > BlockCopyState *bcs; > BdrvChild *target; > OnCbwError on_cbw_error; > - uint32_t cbw_timeout_ns; > + uint64_t cbw_timeout_ns; Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
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 understand: > > Use uint64_t for timeout in nanoseconds ... > Oh, sorry. I'll try to remember that for the future. Should I re-send as a v2? Best Regards, Fiona
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 the subject helps to understand: >> >> Use uint64_t for timeout in nanoseconds ... >> > > Oh, sorry. I'll try to remember that for the future. Should I re-send as > a v2? > Not necessary, I can touch up the message when applying to my block branch. Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
diff --git a/block/copy-before-write.c b/block/copy-before-write.c index 8aba27a71d..026fa9840f 100644 --- a/block/copy-before-write.c +++ b/block/copy-before-write.c @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ typedef struct BDRVCopyBeforeWriteState { BlockCopyState *bcs; BdrvChild *target; OnCbwError on_cbw_error; - uint32_t cbw_timeout_ns; + uint64_t cbw_timeout_ns; /* * @lock: protects access to @access_bitmap, @done_bitmap and
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() call where this is used already takes a uint64_t for the timeout, so no change required there. Fixes: 6db7fd1ca9 ("block/copy-before-write: implement cbw-timeout option") Reported-by: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> --- block/copy-before-write.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)