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? > 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
