From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34828)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wouter@grep.be>) id 1bD9hR-0006Yb-B4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:13:38 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wouter@grep.be>) id 1bD9hP-0001uq-8y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:13:36 -0400
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:13:18 +0200
From: Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be>
Message-ID: <20160615121318.GA30395@grep.be>
References: <1463006384-7734-1-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com>
	<575EA656.80508@redhat.com>
	<6DD06745-C91C-4BFB-BFE5-92E5982ACB42@alex.org.uk>
	<11f620d2-a51d-5235-5abd-4ced314c9090@redhat.com>
	<38ABE56B-CA23-4372-A413-CDA72BDAE86A@alex.org.uk>
	<20160615070522.GC3787@grep.be> <20160615080346.GA6994@grep.be>
	<077010D7-81BE-4AD5-B36A-408844852006@alex.org.uk>
	<2050439854.22663791.1465982331939.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
	<2974A238-B81A-4D02-9FB6-7A70C0AA6E8F@alex.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2974A238-B81A-4D02-9FB6-7A70C0AA6E8F@alex.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Nbd] [PATCH v4 04/11] nbd: Improve server
 handling of bogus commands
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net" <nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net>, qemu block <qemu-block@nongnu.org>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:27:21AM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> Perhaps this should read "If an error occurs, the server MUST either initiate
> a hard disconnect before the entire payload has been sent or
> set the appropriate code in the error field and send the response header
> without any payload." if we want to go down this route.

Something along those lines is what I meant, yes.

-- 
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
       people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
       and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
 -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12