Re: Simplified protocol?
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 04:23:41PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 08:59:56AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 11/15/18 8:41 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > + desiring maximum interoperability MAY default to that size.
> > > +- Clients or servers that desire interoperability with older
> > > + implementations SHOULD implement the `NBD_OPT_EXPORT_NAME` message in
> > > + addition to `NBD_OPT_INFO` and `NBD_OPT_GO`.
> > > +- For data safety, implementing `NBD_CMD_FLUSH` and the
> > > + `NBD_CMD_FLAG_FUA` flag to `NBD_CMD_WRITE` is strongly recommended.
> >
> > Is it worth mentioning 32M as a reasonable max packet size to
> > NBD_CMD_READ/WRITE?
>
> Good point, didn't think of that; thanks for pointing that out.
Actually, the "Block size constraints" section in the main document
already says that in sufficient detail. I've just added a pointer to
that section, like this:
"Clients that do not implement querying for block size constraints
SHOULD abide by the rules laid out in the section "Block size
constraints", above."
--
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy
-- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Reply to: