Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-blk(front|back): Handle large physical sector disks

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:26:25AM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 14.05.2013 10:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 13.05.13 at 19:47, Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
> >> @@ -704,6 +704,13 @@ again:
> >>                             dev->nodename);
> >>            goto abort;
> >>    }
> >> +  err = xenbus_printf(xbt, dev->nodename, "physical-sector-size", "%u",
> >> +                      bdev_physical_block_size(be->blkif->vbd.bdev));
> >> +  if (err) {
> >> +          xenbus_dev_fatal(dev, err, "writing %s/physical-sector-size",
> >> +                           dev->nodename);
> >> +          goto abort;
> > 
> > Failure here should not be fatal (as with any other protocol
> > extensions).
> 
> So I suppose that should be xenbus_dev_error and no abort here. Just wondering

Or dev_warn(&dev->dev).

> (and sorry for being thick headed here) why would a failure here be different 
> in
> severity for an extension or not. Is that not just adding an element to the
> xenstore object and failure would not be related to this being an extension?

Doing a failure tears down the whole XenBus connection. We don't want that.

> 
> > 
> > Beyond that the patch looks good to me.
> > 
> > Jan
> > 
> 
> 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel