> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 09:27:00AM +0800, Lu Xinyu wrote: > > I ran pynfs on the RHEL7.4GA with different > > kernels(3.10.0-830.el7,4.15). The testLargeData:WRT5 failed with > > broken pipe. I investigated pynfs code and got the following > > questions. > > > > 1.The intent of WRT5 To check whether the server could handle a > > too-large value over NFSSVC_MAXBLKSIZE. > > > > 2.The expected procedure when test gets passed The server could write > > down the oversize data successfully sent by client and return NFS4_OK. > > Then, client could read back the data from server. > > Yes, that test is definitely wrong. It might happen to work on servers that > support larger IO size, but the Linux server doesn't. And, anyway, it's perfectly > legal for a server to only support lower read/write size. The test does happen to pass on Ganesha. > So, the test needs check the server's advertised maximum read and write sizes, > and then either: > > 1) use that maximum size, and expect success, or > 2) use a larger size and expect some sort of error. > > > (Actually, the test failed with broken pipe and did not return packet > > information.) > > > > 3.The nfs server's standrd procedure of handling oversize data It > > seems that the related error is not defined in the RFC3530. Whether > > the server should return any NFSERR before ceasing receving ? > > I'm not sure if the RFC's specify the behavior here. I'll go do some research. I > have a feeling they don't. In that case I think the best option will be 1) above. That's probably the right thing to do. Frank --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- 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
