Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:03:32 +0200 From: Marc Olzheim <marcolz@stack.nl> To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@freebsd.org> Cc: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> Subject: Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock Message-ID: <20050420180332.GC99695@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <20050420172839.GK1157@green.homeunix.org> References: <20050419161616.GF1157@green.homeunix.org> <20050419204723.GG1157@green.homeunix.org> <20050420140409.GA77731@stack.nl> <20050420142448.GH1157@green.homeunix.org> <20050420143842.GB77731@stack.nl> <20050420152038.GI1157@green.homeunix.org> <20050420153528.GC77731@stack.nl> <20050420155233.GJ1157@green.homeunix.org> <20050420171220.GB93623@stack.nl> <20050420172839.GK1157@green.homeunix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Y7xTucakfITjPcLV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:28:39PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > It is ok to return partial success if the first chunk of a large write > > succeeded and a later chunk failed persistently, but not if it cannot be > > performed as a single NFS transaction. >=20 > What is your rationale for this? Probably the part that you quoted about the write() after the short write() supposedly returning an error. Besides from that: since it isn't non-blocking, why not just block until everything is written ? That's the way it is done on FreeBSD 4.x and that's how I interpret the standards... Marc --Y7xTucakfITjPcLV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCZpl0ezjnobFOgrERAmC1AKCoq4z0NDZ51FqUJYn8gtm6i7mkkACgyC67 Pgy9gPSlOR+D9vEC5vxVX74= =09w3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Y7xTucakfITjPcLV--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050420180332.GC99695>