From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:56:44 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Benjamin Coddington Cc: Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker , Linux NFS Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS: Retry a zero-length short read Message-ID: <20160316195644.GD12992@fieldses.org> References: <20160316171857.GA12992@fieldses.org> <20160316191503.GB12992@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: List-ID: On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:46:28PM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > So, sounds like fixing this is a good idea on the server. I hope Trond will > let us know if he still feels that the client ought not to be changed since > it seems an easy enough fix to avoid a similar problem on another server. > Perhaps there's a downside I'm not seeing on the client. My worry would just be ensuring forward progress--if the client gets some data back, then at least the next read can start at a later offset.... With zero reads, we can set a maximum number of retries, I guess, but that makes it little messy. > Or maybe the > convention of read() returning 0 meaning eof is global enough to cause it to > be acceptible behavior -- we really should treat a zero-length read response > without eof as an error. My lack of experience is showing.. :) Eh, I think it's legitimately more confusing than it should be. --b.