From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36786) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V076Z-0006Ws-2H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:36:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V076W-0003hZ-JY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:36:03 -0400 Received: from mx.ipv6.kamp.de ([2a02:248:0:51::16]:34741 helo=mx01.kamp.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V076W-0003gv-1W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:36:00 -0400 Message-ID: <51E90882.8000508@kamp.de> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:36:02 +0200 From: Peter Lieven MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1374136652-22567-1-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de> <20130719091456.GD2992@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20130719091456.GD2992@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: fix bdrv_read_unthrottled() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com On 19.07.2013 11:14, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 18.07.2013 um 10:37 hat Peter Lieven geschrieben: >> Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven >> --- >> block.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c >> index b560241..c7f0197 100644 >> --- a/block.c >> +++ b/block.c >> @@ -2250,7 +2250,7 @@ int bdrv_read_unthrottled(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t sector_num, >> >> enabled = bs->io_limits_enabled; >> bs->io_limits_enabled = false; >> - ret = bdrv_read(bs, 0, buf, 1); >> + ret = bdrv_read(bs, sector_num, buf, nb_sectors); >> bs->io_limits_enabled = enabled; >> return ret; >> } > Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf > > The commit message would have deserved a comment about the impact. The > only caller is passing 0 as sector_num and 1 as nb_sectors, so this > doesn't change the behaviour in practice. (Which is the reason why it's > not for qemu-stable.) Yes, I only spotted it while working on 4KN support. Peter