On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 07:24:30PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:48:13AM -0400, josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx>
> > >
> > > There's no reason to limit ourselves to one disconnect message per
> > > socket. Sometimes networks do strange things, might as well let
> > > sysadmins hit the panic button as much as they want.
> >
> > The protocol spec is pretty clear that any requests sent after the
> > disconnect request was sent out are not guaranteed to be processed
> > anymore.
> >
> > Doesn't this allow more requests to be sent out? Or is the
> > NBD_DISCONNECT_REQUESTED flag enough to make that impossible?
> >
>
> This just allows users to call the disconnect ioctl/netlink thing multiple times
> and have it send the DISCONNECT command if they want.
Right.
> We've had problems with our in-hosue nbd server missing messages,
That's pretty bad...
> and it's just a pain to have to unstuck it because the server messed up.
> It's just for the rare case the server is being weird, not because we
> expect/guarantee that subsequent disconnect commands will be processed.
> Thanks,
Okay, makes sense. Just thought I'd ask :-)
--
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
Hacklab
