On 12 Apr 2016, at 07:01, Wouter Verhelst <w...@uter.be> wrote: > hat doesn't mean OPT_ABORT not having a reply is necessarily a good > idea. Since it's only used by reference nbd-client in just one use case > at this point, I don't think it's particularly bad to change the > definition to say that the server SHOULD send a reply (NBD_REP_ACK), > upon which the server drops the connection. > > The client should probably wait for that too, and not close its socket > until either it gets a zero read (indicating that the server closed it > already) or it gets an NBD_REP_ACK from the NBD_OPT_ABORT message.
Yeah. That way would be a safe change (as the worst that can happen is the client thinks the server has rudely dropped the connection). -- Alex Bligh
