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;
 
     /*
      * @lock: protects access to @access_bitmap, @done_bitmap and
-- 
2.39.2

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>

-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir