Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 04:41:43PM CEST, gerlitz...@gmail.com wrote: >On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: >> Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:21:44PM CEST, gerlitz...@gmail.com wrote: >>>On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: >>>> Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:28:58AM CEST, j...@resnulli.us wrote: >>>>>Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 08:45:58AM CEST, gerlitz...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: >>> >>>>>>This introduced a regression to the 2-phase commit scheme, since the >>>>>>prepare commit can fail >>>>>>and that would go un-noticed toward the upper layer, agree? >>> >>>>>Well, no. This still does the transaction for all lower devices in one >>>>>go. No change in that. >>> >>>> Now I get it, yes you are right. But currently there is no code in >>>> kernel which would control retval of deferred attr_set or obj_add/del >>> >>>I am not sure to understand your reply. You are saying that when the deferred >>>procedures complete (e.g fail in the prepare phase) they can't actually let >>>the upper layer to realize that this change isn't possible? this is >>>exactly the bug. >> >> Correct. But check the code. Callers of current deferred variants do >> not care about the retval. Therefore this is not a regression. > >No sure to follow on (current) callers of current deferred variants, >are there already >deferred variants for switchdev ops? aren't they introduced in this series?
Yes they are. Those are those places where deferred variants need to be called. > >> It makes sense in my opinion. If you are a called and you explicitly say to >> defer the operation, you cannot expect retval. > >yes, this might make sure for the caller, if they want to know the >retval, shouldn't use >the deferred variant. > >Or. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
