From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>, Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be>,
Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
"nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net"
<nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] nbd structured reply
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 14:30:07 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c3c3bfdb-3e8f-5443-3d6c-52ab5a95bc63@virtuozzo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cecb7a50-6913-0d88-59b4-805463aba790@virtuozzo.com>
21.09.2017 15:18, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I'm about this:
>
> "A server SHOULD try to minimize the number of chunks sent in a reply,
> but MUST NOT mark a chunk as final if there is still a possibility of
> detecting an error before transmission of that chunk completes"
>
> What do we mean by "possibility"? Formally, such possibility exists
> always, so, we'll never mark a chunk as final.
>
One more question:
for |NBD_REPLY_TYPE_ERROR and ||NBD_REPLY_TYPE_ERROR_OFFSET, why do we
need message_length field? why not to calc it as chunk.lenght - 4 for
||NBD_REPLY_TYPE_ERROR and chunk.lenght - 12 for
||NBD_REPLY_TYPE_ERROR_OFFSET?
For example, with NBD_REPLY_TYPE_OFFSET_DATA variable data length is
calculated, not specified separately.
What is the reason for server to send NBD_REPLY_TYPE_ERROR with
message_lenght < chunk.lenght - 4?
|
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-05 11:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-21 12:18 [Qemu-devel] nbd structured reply Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2017-09-21 13:55 ` Eric Blake
2017-09-22 14:57 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2017-09-22 20:36 ` Eric Blake
2017-09-23 11:00 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2017-09-23 13:00 ` Wouter Verhelst
2017-10-05 11:30 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy [this message]
2017-10-05 12:27 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2017-10-05 13:37 ` Eric Blake
2017-10-06 6:39 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-09-21 12:08 Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c3c3bfdb-3e8f-5443-3d6c-52ab5a95bc63@virtuozzo.com \
--to=vsementsov@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=alex@alex.org.uk \
--cc=eblake@redhat.com \
--cc=nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=w@uter.be \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).