From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56695) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yqg1l-0001L7-PN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 May 2015 07:01:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yqg1k-00068t-TG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 May 2015 07:01:09 -0400 Message-ID: <554C9768.6030306@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 13:00:56 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20150507122911.GB4571@noname.redhat.com> <554B5ED3.4030405@redhat.com> <20150507132056.GC4571@noname.redhat.com> <554B6EBB.1010001@redhat.com> <20150507140716.GE4571@noname.redhat.com> <554B73C2.4030908@redhat.com> <20150507143418.GF4571@noname.redhat.com> <554B7BBC.2040508@redhat.com> <20150508100832.GC4318@noname.redhat.com> <554C8D1B.8030307@redhat.com> <20150508103448.GD4318@noname.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20150508103448.GD4318@noname.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH v2 0/3] block: Warn about usage of growing formats over non-growable protocols List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , Max Reitz On 08/05/2015 12:34, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 08.05.2015 um 12:16 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: >> On 08/05/2015 12:08, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>> If so, the commands seem to be hopelessly underspecified, especially >>> with respect to error conditions. And where it says something about >>> errors, it doesn't make sense: The server is forbidden to reply to a >>> NBD_CMD_FLUSH if it failed... (qemu-nbd ignores this, obviously) >> >> So does nbd-server. O:-) Looks like you're reading the spec too >> literally (which is never a bad thing). > > I don't think there is something like reading a spec too literally. > Specs are meant to be read literally. If a specification is open to > interpretation, you don't need it. So I'd rather say I've found a bug > in the spec. ;-) You have. The bug is a single missing word ("successful") reply, but it is still a bug. There is another bug, in that it talks about "outstanding" writes rather than completed" writes. > As you already seem to be working on the NBD mailing list, do you want > to fix this, or should I subscribe and send a patch myself? You've been CCed on the fix. Paolo