Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 3/1] doc: Propose Structured Replies extension
- To: Eric Blake <eblake@...696...>
- Cc: nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net, qemu-devel@...530...
- Subject: Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 3/1] doc: Propose Structured Replies extension
- From: Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 21:06:52 +0200
- Message-id: <20160329190652.GD12469@...3...>
- In-reply-to: <20160329185157.GC12469@...3...>
- References: <1459173555-4890-1-git-send-email-eblake@...696...> <1459223796-28474-2-git-send-email-eblake@...696...> <20160329175319.GA8628@...3...> <56FAC823.8070206@...696...> <20160329185157.GC12469@...3...>
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 08:51:57PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:23:31PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I chose the design of 0 or more structured replies
> > followed by a normal reply, so that the normal reply is a reliable
> > indicator that the read is complete (whether successful or not); and the
> > whole goal of the extension is to avoid sending any data payload on a
> > normal reply. I'm not sure how to send the offset in the normal reply
> > without violating the premise that a normal reply has no payload.
>
> Oh. I thought you meant for the concluding message to also be a
> structured reply with the length field be zero, but you mean for it to
> be a non-structured reply message? If so, you should clarify that a bit
> more (this wasn't clear to me)...
Also, I'm not convinced that's a very good approach, since it also
requires analyzers to have more context than just requiring a single
final "empty" structured reply message.
--
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
-- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12
Reply to: