[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150924.225508.2124748200966556070.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 22:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: sfeldma@...il.com
Cc: vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, idosch@...lanox.com, eladr@...lanox.com,
f.fainelli@...il.com, linux@...ck-us.net, rami.rosen@...el.com,
roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, pjonnala@...adcom.com, andrew@...n.ch,
gospo@...ulusnetworks.com, jiri@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v3 02/10] switchdev: introduce transaction
item queue for attr_set and obj_add
From: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 22:29:43 -0700
> I'd rather keep 2-phase not optional, or at least make it some what of
> a pain for drivers to opt-out of 2-phase. Forcing the driver to see
> both phases means the driver needs to put some code to skip phase 1
> (and hopefully has some persistent comment explaining why its being
> skipped). Something like:
>
> /* I'm skipping phase 1 prepare for this operation. I have infinite hardware
> * resources and I'm not setting any persistent state in the driver or device
> * and I don't need any dynamic resources from the kernel, so its impossible
> * for me to fail phase 2 commit. Nothing to prepare, sorry.
> */
I agree with Scott here.
If you can opt out of something, you can not think about it and thus
more likely get it wrong.
I can just see a driver not implementing prepare at all and then doing
stupid things in commit when they hit some resource limit or whatever,
rather than taking care of such issues in prepare.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists