On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 01:25:02PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > --On 16 May 2011 13:58:59 +0200 Wouter Verhelst <[email protected]> wrote: > > > However, it would require that the server sends some sort of > > confirmation upon completing negotiation, so that the client knows > > whether its option has been accepted or ignored. Currently the server > > doesn't do that. I guess we can add a flag for that. > > I guess it could echo the options it understood back (which would be > useful as it would allow the server to pass the client options too - > currently these are limited to flags). However, that would require > a change to how the existing one option is handled.
For the sake of consistency, at least. > Another possibility would be to set (e.g.) the top bit of the option > number to mean "error if you don't understand this", which would be > rather less fine-grained. Or, the server could always send a message back for options it does not understand; it would then be up to the client to decide whether it wants to continue without that option or to give up entirely. I guess I'll go with that instead, if and when the need arises. At any rate, both your patches have been applied. -- The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by the following formula: pi zz a ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay _______________________________________________ Nbd-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nbd-general
