On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 06:38:00AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 09:36:11AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > Yeah, understood, I'm glad we're not implementing that, I just wonder > > why every one of these operations (COPY, WRITE_PLUS, etc.) has to have > > this asynchronous option. > > > > The client's still stuck implementing it even if the server does, it's > > extra protocol verbage even if nobody uses it, and I'm not completely > > clear what it's for. > > Seems like Trond answered that question: feature creep that people > without the slightest sense of abstraction tried to overload over a few > operations. Your complaint as I understand it is that quick and long-running operations were combined into one one operation when they would have better been separated. I agree. But I also don't understand why the long-running operations need an async option. Maybe they do, I just don't understand why. Alternatives might include just letting the operation hog a request slot for the whole time, or making it work in chunks. (E.g. allowing COPY to return short writes.) --b. -- 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
