On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 12:59:59 +0100, Guillaume Nault wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 11:54:07AM +0000, Tom Parkin wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 23:51:53 +0100, Guillaume Nault wrote: > > > BTW, shouldn't we have an "UNBRIDGE" command to remove the bridge > > > between two channels? > > > > I'm not sure of the usecase for it to be honest. Do you have > > something specific in mind? > > I don't know if there'd be a real production use case. I proposed it > because, in my experience, the diffucult part of any new feature is > the "undo" operation. That's where many race conditions are found. > > Having a way to directly revert a BRIDGE operation might help testing > the undo path (otherwise it's just triggered as a side effect of > closing a file descriptor). I personally find that having symmetrical > "do" and "undo" operations helps me thinking precisely about how to > manage concurency. But that's probably a matter of preference. And that > can even be done without exposing the "undo" operation to user space > (it's just more difficult to test). > > Anyway, that was just a suggestion. I have no strong opinion.
Thanks for clarifying the point -- I agree with you about the "undo" operation helping to expose race conditions.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
