Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> writes: > See patch 3 for the reason why we have actually never supported TFTP at > all (except for very small files (i.e. below 256 kB or so)).
Care to explain why it works "for very small files" in a bit more detail? PATCH 3 gives a "does not support byte ranges" hint, but to go from there to "very small files", you need to know more about how the block layer works than I can remember right now. > I would consider this series a bug fix because, well, it doesn't really > change any functionality, and the bug is "We don't support TFTP but we > pretend we do". > > > Alternatives to this approach: > > - Deprecate TFTP first. Wait one version, then drop it. > > We could do this, but I personally don't think it's necessary. We have > done this for host_floppy, but in contrast to host_floppy, TFTP really > has never worked. "(except for very small files (i.e. below 256 kB or so)" > Thus, I conclude that nobody is actually using it or > has ever used it for real work. Plausible. > Still, if you think otherwise, we can still do this, of course. > > - Don't remove TFTP altogether, but just emit a run-time error like we > do for HTTP servers that do not support range-based requests. > > Seems dirty and not like the real solution to me. Also, we have > removed other block drivers in the past, so I don't think we should > keep TFTP. Well, the run-time error with HTTP happens when we have a losing server, while with TFTP, no non-losing servers can exist (except for very small files). Anyway, I'm fine with dropping TFTP right away. I'd probably squash the three patches, but that's a matter of taste.
