On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:34 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Saeed Mahameed <sae...@dev.mellanox.co.il> > Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 23:27:06 +0300 > >> but my concerns is when features A and B requires firmware commands A then B >> and firmware command B fails, there is no gurantee that roll back for >> firmware command A will work. >> >> this is why in case of B fails we keep the state (new A and prev B) >> rather than try to go back to (prev A and prev B). > > That's a limitation of your firmware I would say. > > Users do not expect the semantics you will be providing, if "change A and B" > fails both states must not be changed. > > This is an unwavering requirement, you must do everything you can to > meet that expection. > > You cannot say "our firmware does this so, you might get partial > updates." That simply is not acceptable.
Got it, we'll revisit this area of code and make meet the requirement. Thank you Dave.
