From: Peter Staubach Subject: Re: [PATCH pynfs] Allow server to reject maximum commit offsets Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:32:33 -0500 Message-ID: <4B747771.40902@redhat.com> References: <20100209201231.GC30951@fieldses.org> <4B71E1A4.1070604@redhat.com> <20100209224228.GA1645@fieldses.org> <4B71E572.3020401@redhat.com> <20100209225018.GB1645@fieldses.org> <20100211203857.GF3801@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: iisaman@citi.umich.edu, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64639 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756720Ab0BKVcl (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:32:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100211203857.GF3801@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 05:50:18PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> The tests are primarily meant to test protocol conformance. So they >> shouldn't be reporting failures on conforming behavior. >> >> Perhaps it would also be interesting to run the tests in a mode which >> probes and summarizes server characteristics (maximum supported offset, >> supported features, etc.), but that's a job for another day. > > Hm, actually another alternative would be just to keep these tests, but > to *always* allow them to succeed. Or to fail only if the server > returns an error that really is totally wrong. > > Even if we don't much care about the results, sending operations with > extreme values for the arguments may still help make sure server's don't > skimp on the range-checking and crash in some lower-level code. > This sounds reasonable to me. ps