On 04/16/2016 11:12 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39:12AM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: >> >> On 15 Apr 2016, at 08:09, Wouter Verhelst <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> If a server advertises a minimum >>>> +block size, the advertised export size MUST be an integer multiple of >>>> +that block size. >>> >>> I think this can be a SHOULD without problem? >> >> Actually I think this should be a MUST. If the server is imposing >> restrictions, they should be consistent. > > Which is why I said SHOULD, not MAY. > >> The client actually can't access the export beyond the integer multiple >> without violating the spec, so in my mind it's up to the server to round the >> size down. > > Sure. My point is that the client would have to have a <= test anyway, > in which case it doesn't matter if the size isn't a nice integer > multiple. It's not proper, and we should discourage people from doing it > wrong (which is what SHOULD does), but it doesn't cause many problems if > you did it wrong anyway.
Okay, I think I'll word it as SHOULD, with the caveat that a server violating the SHOULD has made it impossible for the client to access the tail of the file. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
