On Thu, May 29 2008, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2008 schrieb Jens Axboe: > > > > Just that u64 seems like overkill: u32? > > > > > > Definitely, u32 would be just fine, u64 is way overkill :-) > > > > Even u16 would work, the block layer doesn't use more than an unsigned > > short for storing hardware sector size anyway. > > Thanks, good to know. Do you think, that could change in the future? > The virtio definition is going to be a public interface, so if there > is a chance that u16 is not enough in the future I would respin the > patch with u32, otherwise u16. I'd say go with the u32, it's the safest option for an exported interface. -- Jens Axboe _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
