Re: [Nbd] [PATCH] Further tidy-up on block status

To: Alex Bligh <alex@...872...>, Wouter Verheist <w@...112...>, nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@...696...>, qemu-devel@...530..., Pavel Borzenkov <pborzenkov@...2319...>, stefanha@...696..., "Denis V . Lunev" <den@...2317...>, Markus Pargmann <mpa@...1897...>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...696...>, John Snow <jsnow@...696...>
Subject: Re: [Nbd] [PATCH] Further tidy-up on block status
From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@...2319...>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:43:38 +0300
Message-id: <ac0cc1e5-dea5-ba2d-2789-7dd0672ad561@...2319...>
In-reply-to: <20161214150840.10899-1-alex@...872...>
References: <20161214150840.10899-1-alex@...872...>

(Sorry, it may be a bit out of topic, but I hope it is comfortable for all that I just comment current version of the feature by answering cover letter of last related patch set)

From "NBD_OPT_LIST_META_CONTEXT (9)":

The server MUST either reply with an error (for instance EINVAL if the option is not supported), or reply with a list of NBD_REP_META_CONTEXT replies followed by NBD_REP_ACK.:

NBD_REP_ERR_UNSUP for the case in braces? Should it be normal option reply packet?

-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Nbd] [PATCH] Further tidy-up on block status
  - From: Alex Bligh <alex@...872...>

Prev by Date: Re: [Nbd] [PATCH] Further tidy-up on block status
Next by Date: Re: [Nbd] [PATCH] Further tidy-up on block status
Previous by thread: Re: [Nbd] [PATCH] Further tidy-up on block status
Next by thread: Re: [Nbd] [PATCH] Further tidy-up on block status
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread