Re: [Nbd] [PATCH v4] doc: Propose STRUCTURED_REPLY extension
- To: Eric Blake <eblake@...696...>
- Cc: nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net
- Subject: Re: [Nbd] [PATCH v4] doc: Propose STRUCTURED_REPLY extension
- From: Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...>
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:57:15 +0200
- Message-id: <20160401085715.GH25514@...3...>
- In-reply-to: <1459488588-11175-1-git-send-email-eblake@...696...>
- References: <1459488588-11175-1-git-send-email-eblake@...696...>
Did a few minor changes, though:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:29:48PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> -S: 32 bits, 0x67446698, magic (`NBD_REPLY_MAGIC`)
> -S: 32 bits, error
> +S: 32 bits, 0x67446698, magic (`NBD_SIMPLE_REPLY_MAGIC`)
Added a reference to the old name, for clarity.
[...]
> +- bit 6, `NBD_FLAG_SEND_DF`; defined by the `STRUCTURED_REPLY` extension;
> + see below.
This is now bit 7 (we're already halfway through our available flags! time
flies...)
[...]
> +- bit 1, `NBD_CMD_FLAG_DF`; defined by the experimental `STRUCTURED_REPLY`
> + extension; see below
This is now bit 2.
[...]
Regards,
--
< 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: