search for: flag_df

...ver/protocol.c b/server/protocol.c index a52bb56..0a9f73c 100644 --- a/server/protocol.c +++ b/server/protocol.c @@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ skip_over_write_buffer (int sock, size_t count) /* Convert a system errno to an NBD_E* error code. */ static int -nbd_errno (int error) +nbd_errno (int error, bool flag_df) { switch (error) { case 0: @@ -349,7 +349,9 @@ nbd_errno (int error) return NBD_ESHUTDOWN; #endif case EOVERFLOW: - return NBD_EOVERFLOW; + if (flag_df) + return NBD_EOVERFLOW; + /* fallthrough */ case EINVAL: default: return NBD_EINVAL; @@ -368,7 +370,7 @@...

.../ extern const char *name_of_nbd_opt (int); @@ -223,10 +224,11 @@ extern const char *name_of_nbd_cmd (int); #define NBD_CMD_BLOCK_STATUS 7 extern const char *name_of_nbd_cmd_flag (int); -#define NBD_CMD_FLAG_FUA (1<<0) -#define NBD_CMD_FLAG_NO_HOLE (1<<1) -#define NBD_CMD_FLAG_DF (1<<2) -#define NBD_CMD_FLAG_REQ_ONE (1<<3) +#define NBD_CMD_FLAG_FUA (1<<0) +#define NBD_CMD_FLAG_NO_HOLE (1<<1) +#define NBD_CMD_FLAG_DF (1<<2) +#define NBD_CMD_FLAG_REQ_ONE (1<<3) +#define NBD_CMD_FLAG_FAST_ZERO (1<<4) /* Error...

...a52bb56..0a9f73c 100644 > --- a/server/protocol.c > +++ b/server/protocol.c > @@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ skip_over_write_buffer (int sock, size_t count) > > /* Convert a system errno to an NBD_E* error code. */ > static int > -nbd_errno (int error) > +nbd_errno (int error, bool flag_df) > { > switch (error) { > case 0: > @@ -349,7 +349,9 @@ nbd_errno (int error) > return NBD_ESHUTDOWN; > #endif > case EOVERFLOW: > - return NBD_EOVERFLOW; > + if (flag_df) > + return NBD_EOVERFLOW; > + /* fallthrough */ > case EIN...

On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 09:03:05AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 3/8/19 4:04 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Also we do not understand NBD_CMD_FLAG_DF, but that seems to be OK > > because (a) we don't advertize the feature and (b) we only send back a > > single chunk anyway. > > Or, we COULD advertise it because we always honor it (but that's a > larger diffstat, and thus at odds with "minimal implementation&quo...

I'm hoping to implement .extents for the nbd plugin; this is a prerequisite. I'm not sure about patch 3 - if we like it, I'll squash it to 2, if we don't, I think we are okay just dropping it. I'm also wondering if we have to worry about malicious plugins that don't populate the entire .pread buffer in an effort to get nbdkit to expose portions of the heap; my patch 7 loses

This is a cover letter to a series of patches being proposed in tandem to four different projects: - nbd: Document a new NBD_CMD_FLAG_FAST_ZERO command flag - qemu: Implement the flag for both clients and server - libnbd: Implement the flag for clients - nbdkit: Implement the flag for servers, including the nbd passthrough client If you want to test the patches together, I've pushed a