On 08/05/2015 12:34, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 08.05.2015 um 12:16 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
>> On 08/05/2015 12:08, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> If so, the commands seem to be hopelessly underspecified, especially
>>> with respect to error conditions. And where it says something about
>>> errors, it doesn't make sense: The server is forbidden to reply to a
>>> NBD_CMD_FLUSH if it failed... (qemu-nbd ignores this, obviously)
>>
>> So does nbd-server. O:-) Looks like you're reading the spec too
>> literally (which is never a bad thing).
>
> I don't think there is something like reading a spec too literally.
> Specs are meant to be read literally. If a specification is open to
> interpretation, you don't need it. So I'd rather say I've found a bug
> in the spec. ;-)
You have. The bug is a single missing word ("successful") reply, but it
is still a bug.
There is another bug, in that it talks about "outstanding" writes rather
than completed" writes.
> As you already seem to be working on the NBD mailing list, do you want
> to fix this, or should I subscribe and send a patch myself?
You've been CCed on the fix.
Paolo
