On 12 Apr 2016, at 07:01, Wouter Verhelst <[email protected]> wrote: > hat doesn't mean OPT_ABORT not having a reply is necessarily a good > idea. Since it's only used by reference nbd-client in just one use case > at this point, I don't think it's particularly bad to change the > definition to say that the server SHOULD send a reply (NBD_REP_ACK), > upon which the server drops the connection. > > The client should probably wait for that too, and not close its socket > until either it gets a zero read (indicating that the server closed it > already) or it gets an NBD_REP_ACK from the NBD_OPT_ABORT message.
Yeah. That way would be a safe change (as the worst that can happen is the client thinks the server has rudely dropped the connection). -- Alex Bligh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z _______________________________________________ Nbd-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nbd-general
