On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 03:08:22PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:04:38PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > I had some ideas that layouts were something a server could decline just > > on random whim. Rereading that section.... OK, looks like I was > > confused, TRYLATER is the closest we come to random whim. > > > > So the following condition on the alignments of the offset also looks > > wrong. Christoph, should it be rounding the offset down instead of > > rejecting in that case? > > RFC5663 is very explicit about the extents being aligned, but doesn't > say anything about LAYOUTGET requests. It's a bit of a gray area, but > I think not handing out a layout is still the best thing to do as a client > has to be really confused to ask for an unaligned layout and expect to get > an aligned extent back. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5661#section-18.43.3 always allows a server to round down the offset, is there any downside to doing that? > I just need to check for the best possible error value. INVAL or BADLAYOUT, I guess. But just rounding down seems harmless and compatible with the letter of the spec. Though without any reason or a client to request an unaligned offset I guess it's a bit academic. --b. > > > And other layoutunavailable cases might need review too. > > Will do. -- 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
