Re: [PATCH] Document short responses to qXfer:object:read.

[David Taylor <dtaylor@emc.com>]

> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:35:27 +0300


> It very much does, thanks.  I have 3 follow-up questions:
> 
>  . It's not clear to me what is the "returned amount" here, as the
>    listed responses for this packet don't seem to provide the amount
>    of data in the response.  Do you mean the length of the data in the
>    "m DATA" or "l DATA" responses, counted in bytes?
> 
>  . What is a zero-length response?  Is that "l" without data?
> 
>  . If my interpretation of the above 2 issues is correct, then why do we
>    need this new text you suggest?  The 'm' and 'l' responses already
>    say that the data can be shorter than the request, which seems to
>    be what the new text says.
> 
> Finally, it looks to me that we should move the description of the
> responses to precede the details of the 'read' requests, since the
> list of those requests is very long, and thus the promised description
> of the responses "below" is very far away, which IMO gets in the way
> of reading and comprehending the issue.
> 
> > Now, can we come up with better wording?
> 
> After we've figured out the above left-overs, sure.
> 
> Thanks.

I didn't pay attention to that as it was far enough after the text in
question and looked -- at quick glance -- like it was part of the osdata
description and therefore not relevant to threads.

Taking a longer look, it clearly is relevant.

It addresses most of my concerns and moving it, as you suggested, would
definitely, IMO, help.

Thanks.