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. It makes sense in my opinion. If you are a called and you explicitly say to defer the operation, you cannot expect retval. -- 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
