Eric, Merged Alex On 20 Apr 2016, at 13:17, Eric Blake <eblake@...696...> wrote: > On 04/20/2016 04:37 AM, Alex Bligh wrote: >> Eric, >> >> In general I think we should probably apply this and see how it >> looks though I suspect fixing things is going to be an iterative >> matter. >> > >>> @@ -1086,10 +1088,7 @@ The following request types exist: >>> If structured replies were not negotiated, then a read request >>> MUST always be answered by a simple reply, as documented above >>> (using magic 0x67446698 `NBD_SIMPLE_REPLY_MAGIC`, and containing >>> - length bytes of data according to the client's request, although >>> - those bytes MAY be invalid if an error is returned, and a hard >>> - disconnect MUST be initiated if an error occurs after a header >>> - claiming no error). >>> + length bytes of data according to the client's request). >> >> That's a nit that isn't a move. >> >> '*length*' bytes of data >> >> What's the reason for removing the fact that in simple replies you >> can send invalid data (as the client will be expecting the data)? > > When I first wrote that paragraph, it lived in the experimental section, > way below where the original description of NBD_CMD_READ simple replies > lived, so it was a nice parenthetical refresher. But now that the text > is alongside the rest of NBD_CMD_READ, it is both redundant (the very > next paragraph says the same thing), and wrong (it says "as documented > above" which applies to the "magic 0x67446698" but NOT to the "bytes MAY > be invalid if an error", because there is no text above that states the > bytes may be invalid until the next paragraph). > > -- > Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 > Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org > -- Alex Bligh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail