On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:46:28PM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > So, sounds like fixing this is a good idea on the server. I hope Trond will > let us know if he still feels that the client ought not to be changed since > it seems an easy enough fix to avoid a similar problem on another server. > Perhaps there's a downside I'm not seeing on the client. My worry would just be ensuring forward progress--if the client gets some data back, then at least the next read can start at a later offset.... With zero reads, we can set a maximum number of retries, I guess, but that makes it little messy. > Or maybe the > convention of read() returning 0 meaning eof is global enough to cause it to > be acceptible behavior -- we really should treat a zero-length read response > without eof as an error. My lack of experience is showing.. :) Eh, I think it's legitimately more confusing than it should be. --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
