Re: [nfsv4] New version of sparse draft (draft-hildebrand-nfsv4-read-sparse-01.txt)

["J. Bruce Fields" <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 10:54:38AM -0700, Marc Eshel wrote:
>  On 10/1/2010 10:40 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 10:28:55AM -0700, Marc Eshel wrote:
> >>  I can claim that trying to read unallocated part of the file is and
> >>error :) but I see the point of complicating the error handling.  We
> >>can instead just add more information to the reply without giving
> >>the error return code.
> >The status is the only switch you can really take advantage of in the
> >read reply, so I don't think that's an option.  (The minorversion rules
> >prohibit completely replacing the xdr for an existing operation, which
> >is a good rule.)
> >
> >>I think this a simple solution that should be agreed on as
> >>alternative if we don't have a more general solution that will cover
> >>the requirement for this one.
> >>This is a good example how we this group start with simple ideas and
> >>ending up with a conflicted and convoluted protocol that drags for
> >>years.
> >I think you'll find a separate READZ will be simpler if anything.
> >
> >That doesn't force you to accept any extra bells and whistles if you
> >don't want to.
> >
> >--b.
> >
> 
> That sounds fair, but it should be called DONT_READ_Z  :)

We can say the Z is for "zoom", or "zippy", rather than zero.

--b.