On 06/15/2016 07:38 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 14/06/2016 23:30, Eric Blake wrote:
>> We were basing the advertisement of maximum discard and transfer
>> length off of UINT32_MAX, but since the rest of the block layer
>> has signed int limits on a transaction, nothing could ever reach
>> t
On Tue, 06/14 15:30, Eric Blake wrote:
> We were basing the advertisement of maximum discard and transfer
> length off of UINT32_MAX, but since the rest of the block layer
> has signed int limits on a transaction, nothing could ever reach
> that maximum, and we risk overflowing an int once things a
On 14/06/2016 23:30, Eric Blake wrote:
> We were basing the advertisement of maximum discard and transfer
> length off of UINT32_MAX, but since the rest of the block layer
> has signed int limits on a transaction, nothing could ever reach
> that maximum, and we risk overflowing an int once things
We were basing the advertisement of maximum discard and transfer
length off of UINT32_MAX, but since the rest of the block layer
has signed int limits on a transaction, nothing could ever reach
that maximum, and we risk overflowing an int once things are
converted to byte-based rather than sector-b
