On 04/14/2015 12:53 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 09:04:02AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: >> Yuck! How the heck do you clean up the mess if that happens? I guess >> you're just stuck redoing the copy with normal READ/WRITE? >> >> Maybe we need to have the interface return a hard error in that >> case and not try to give back any sort of offset? > > The NFSv4.2 COPY interface is a train wreck. At least for Linux I'd > expect us to simply ignore it and only implement my new CLONE operation > with sane semantics. That is unless someone can show some real life > use case for the inter server copy, in which case we'll have to deal > with that mess. But getting that one right at the VFS level will > be a nightmare anyway. > > Make this a vote from me to not support partial copies and just return > and error in that case.
Agreed. Looking at the v4.2 spec, COPY does take ca_consecutive and a ca_synchronous flags that let the client state if the copy should be done consecutively or synchronously. I expected to always set consecutive to "true" for the Linux client. Anna > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
