On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 16:22 +0300, Benny Halevy wrote: > On Jul. 16, 2008, 15:57 +0300, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Why do we need to handle OP_ILLEGAL in the first place? This is the > > client; it isn't supposed to send illegal operations... > > Right, but it helps in the development process when dealing with > a broken version of the server or the client to pass a less > generic error (-EOPNOTSUPP) up the stack rather than -EIO. NFS4ERR_OP_ILLEGAL literally means "this operation isn't even listed in the 4.0/4.1 RFC". That's out in EYOUUTTERLYINSANECLIENT territory, and so the current mapping to EOPNOTSUPP is just wrong. NFS4ERR_NOTSUPP is the correct return value if a server doesn't (yet) support an operation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
