05.10.2017 16:37, Eric Blake wrote:
On 10/05/2017 06:30 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
21.09.2017 15:18, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi all!
I'm about this:
"A server SHOULD try to minimize the number of chunks sent in a reply,
but MUST NOT mark a chunk as final if there is
On 10/05/2017 06:30 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 21.09.2017 15:18, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I'm about this:
>>
>> "A server SHOULD try to minimize the number of chunks sent in a reply,
>> but MUST NOT mark a chunk as final if there is still a possibility of
fix cc to n...@other.debian.org
05.10.2017 14:30, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
21.09.2017 15:18, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi all!
I'm about this:
"A server SHOULD try to minimize the number of chunks sent in a
reply, but MUST NOT mark a chunk as final if there is still a
21.09.2017 15:18, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi all!
I'm about this:
"A server SHOULD try to minimize the number of chunks sent in a reply,
but MUST NOT mark a chunk as final if there is still a possibility of
detecting an error before transmission of that chunk completes"
What do
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 05:57:07PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> The obvious behavior of client is to fail the whole read if it received one
> error chunk.
Not necessarily.
If a user-space program requests to read X bytes of data, but there is
an error at X-N, then the obvious way
22.09.2017 23:36, Eric Blake wrote:
On 09/22/2017 09:57 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
If you have suggestions for improving the NBD spec wording, feel free to
propose a doc patch.
Thanks, now I understand.. However I don't have good idea of wording..
Another thing: server can
On 09/22/2017 09:57 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> If you have suggestions for improving the NBD spec wording, feel free to
>> propose a doc patch.
>>
>
> Thanks, now I understand.. However I don't have good idea of wording..
>
>
> Another thing: server can send several error and
21.09.2017 16:55, Eric Blake wrote:
[updating CC to point to the correct new NBD list]
On 09/21/2017 07:18 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi all!
I'm about this:
"A server SHOULD try to minimize the number of chunks sent in a reply,
but MUST NOT mark a chunk as final if there is
[updating CC to point to the correct new NBD list]
On 09/21/2017 07:18 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I'm about this:
>
> "A server SHOULD try to minimize the number of chunks sent in a reply,
> but MUST NOT mark a chunk as final if there is still a possibility of
>
Hi all!
I'm about this:
"A server SHOULD try to minimize the number of chunks sent in a reply,
but MUST NOT mark a chunk as final if there is still a possibility of
detecting an error before transmission of that chunk completes"
What do we mean by "possibility"? Formally, such possibility
Hi all!
I'm about this:
"A server SHOULD try to minimize the number of chunks sent in a reply,
but MUST NOT mark a chunk as final if there is still a possibility of
detecting an error before transmission of that chunk completes"
What do we mean by "possibility"? Formally, such possibility
11 matches
Mail list logo
