From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: NFSERR_EAGAIN Date: 11 Jul 2003 00:41:13 +0200 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <3F0DB088.303@cinesite.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: nfs , Iain Irwin-Powell Return-path: Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16] ident=7411) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 19ak6R-0003In-00 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:41:27 -0700 To: Danny Smith In-Reply-To: <3F0DB088.303@cinesite.co.uk> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: >>>>> " " == Danny Smith writes: > Looking through nfs2xdr.c and nfs.h and googling, it seems that > error number 11 is not properly defined, but certainly seems to > be in use by SGI. From nfs2xdr.c: > { NFSERR_NXIO, ENXIO }, > /* { NFSERR_EAGAIN, EAGAIN }, */ > { NFSERR_ACCES, EACCES }, > (EAGAIN having value 11) > Does anyone know much about the history of this? Was this > removed in order to be RFC compliant, or is there a stronger > motivation not to have this? Why should we be supporting something which isn't documented in the RFCs? What is this error anyway? Is it some SGI hack for emulating NFS3ERR_JUKEBOX under NFSv2? Cheers, Trond ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs