[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54176ECD.8090807@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:57:17 +0800
From: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@...il.com>
To: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
CC: konrad.wilk@...cle.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com, mukesh.rathor@...cle.com,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_client.c: Improve the failure
processing for __xenbus_switch_state()
On 09/15/2014 10:39 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 14/09/14 11:52, Chen Gang wrote:
>> When failure occurs, need return failure code instead of 0, or the upper
>> caller will misunderstand.
>>
>> Also when retry for EAGAIN reason, better to schedule out for a while,
>> so can let others have chance to continue their tasks (especially,
>> their tasks are related EAGAIN under UP kernel).
>
> Is this fixing a real world problem you have seen?
>
Not real world, only reading by source code, and some of upper level
callers really check the return value, indirectly (they may
misunderstand).
> xenbus_scanf() and xenbus_printf() already sleep while waiting for the
> response and delaying isn't going to reduce the likelihood of the
> transaction being aborted on the retry.
>
OK, thanks, what you said sound reasonable to me, I shall remove the
waiting code when send patch v2 for it.
I shall try to send patch v2 within this week end (2014-09-21), if it is
too late to bare, please let me know (I shall try in time).
Thanks.
--
Chen Gang
Open share and attitude like air water and life which God blessed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists