On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 5:34 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2025-05-07 at 10:45 -0400, cel@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > RFC 7862 states that if an NFS server implements a CLONE operation, > > it MUST also implement FATTR4_CLONE_BLKSIZE. NFSD implements CLONE, > > but does not implement FATTR4_CLONE_BLKSIZE. > > > > Note that in Section 12.2, RFC 7862 claims that > > FATTR4_CLONE_BLKSIZE is RECOMMENDED, not REQUIRED. Likely this is > > because a minor version is not permitted to add a REQUIRED > > attribute. Confusing. > > > > Isn't CLONE itself an optional operation? It wouldn't make sense to > REQUIRE this attribute on servers that don't support CLONE, so I think > it makes sense that it should be optional. Anyway, I'm just being > pedantic. AFAIK (unfortunately) *everything* in NFSv4.2 is optional, basically a NFSv4.1 client or server can claim NFSv4.2 conformance by implementing just protocol minor version negotiation... ;-( Would a protocol minor version check suffice in this case ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz@xxxxxxxxxxx \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;)
