> On 13 Dec 2016, at 16:06, Wouter Verhelst <w...@uter.be> wrote: > >> >> "If a server supports the `base:allocation` metadata context, then writing >> to an extent which has `NBD_STATE_HOLE` clear MUST NOT fail with ENOSPC >> unless for reasons specified in the definition of another context." > > That is essentially what I mean, yes. The point though, is that I also > think a client should assume the worst. > > (additionally, there may be reasons for ENOSPC that the server isn't > aware of; so even if NBD_STATE_HOLE is clear, it should still not be an > error for the server to return ENOSPC)
All of this suggests 'SHOULD NOT' would be more appropriate than 'MUST NOT'. -- Alex Bligh
