On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 12:33 +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 22.10.2012 13:09, schrieb n...@bytemark.co.uk: > > > > This is unlikely to come up now, but is a necessary prerequisite for > > reconnection > > behaviour. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nick Thomas <n...@bytemark.co.uk> > > --- > > block/nbd.c | 13 +++++++++++-- > > 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > What's the real requirement here? Silently ignoring a flush and > returning success for it feels wrong. Why is it correct? > > Kevin
I just needed to avoid socket operations while s->sock == -1, and extending the existing case of "can't do the command, so pretend I did it" to "can't do the command right now, so pretend..." seemed like an easy way out. In the Bytemark case, the NBD server always opens the file O_SYNC, so nbd_co_flush could check in_flight == 0 and return 0/1 based on that; but I'd be surprised if that's true for all NBD servers. Should we be returning 1 here for both "not supported" and "can't do it right now", instead? /Nick
