From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:49073 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751563AbbJKNIX (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Oct 2015 09:08:23 -0400 Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:08:22 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: Trond Myklebust , Christoph Hellwig , Linux NFS Mailing List , Stable Tree Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd/blocklayout: accept any minlength Message-ID: <20151011130821.GC3726@lst.de> References: <1444395806-32111-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20151009152803.GC6825@fieldses.org> <20151009170400.GA7482@lst.de> <20151009174556.GA8188@fieldses.org> <20151009200438.GB8188@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151009200438.GB8188@fieldses.org> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:04:38PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > I had some ideas that layouts were something a server could decline just > on random whim. Rereading that section.... OK, looks like I was > confused, TRYLATER is the closest we come to random whim. > > So the following condition on the alignments of the offset also looks > wrong. Christoph, should it be rounding the offset down instead of > rejecting in that case? RFC5663 is very explicit about the extents being aligned, but doesn't say anything about LAYOUTGET requests. It's a bit of a gray area, but I think not handing out a layout is still the best thing to do as a client has to be really confused to ask for an unaligned layout and expect to get an aligned extent back. I just need to check for the best possible error value. > And other layoutunavailable cases might need review too. Will do.