Re: [PATCH] nfsd/blocklayout: accept any minlength

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.  I just need to check for the best possible error
value.

> And other layoutunavailable cases might need review too.

Will do.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]