IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] Server-side copy question

"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> Tue, 24 October 2017 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <bfields@fieldses.org>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63962139672 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jdaRl2m8hBf7 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fieldses.org (fieldses.org [173.255.197.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FCD21395E9 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fieldses.org (Postfix, from userid 2815) id 3195B77E; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:49:35 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Cc: Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@citi.umich.edu>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20171024184935.GC27853@fieldses.org>
References: <CAN-5tyHJb=ercWh_W2uzPfKR86j=dGWx=zYH1y+TjbNTzYh38A@mail.gmail.com> <20170228164420.GA28845@fieldses.org> <CADaq8jdivTUVNx2LXCiecAKY-nfoZP_XoAoNLwc3V1TUD6X8vg@mail.gmail.com> <CC84C4DB-F00F-45FC-8307-BDA5424DA480@netapp.com> <20170228173215.GA29700@fieldses.org> <CAN-5tyF8EZjYNX3cE43BPM9CbxVLygRdPuTJf_RgC7ntDCf9Kg@mail.gmail.com> <20171020193306.GF15211@fieldses.org> <CAN-5tyHaJeis=_f9h9u1St76Og3A_TtBUxZx_Z=ZouG7sa2=6w@mail.gmail.com> <20171024013646.GA22943@fieldses.org> <CADaq8jdWkTfQB-Y55ow1A23AGCVM12LtwjXYZ6E7zU7M=Aw89g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jdWkTfQB-Y55ow1A23AGCVM12LtwjXYZ6E7zU7M=Aw89g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/DBG5kgVvP4puRDAXOiHgOiwsSe0>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Server-side copy question
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:50:06 -0000

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 07:43:10AM -0400, David Noveck wrote:
> Basically, the server is pretending there is no error and then relying
> on the client to figure out that there was one, which could only be
> done if the spec tells the clients about this.

This is exactly the behavior that READ and WRITE (and read() and
write(), for that matter) have always had, and it's the only reasonable
reading I can see of the CB_OFFLOAD spec language.

--b.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email