[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201117121223.GA4640@katalix.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 12:12:23 +0000
From: Tom Parkin <tparkin@...alix.com>
To: Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jchapman@...alix.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] add ppp_generic ioctl to bridge channels
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 12:59:59 +0100, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 11:54:07AM +0000, Tom Parkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 23:51:53 +0100, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > > BTW, shouldn't we have an "UNBRIDGE" command to remove the bridge
> > > between two channels?
> >
> > I'm not sure of the usecase for it to be honest. Do you have
> > something specific in mind?
>
> I don't know if there'd be a real production use case. I proposed it
> because, in my experience, the diffucult part of any new feature is
> the "undo" operation. That's where many race conditions are found.
>
> Having a way to directly revert a BRIDGE operation might help testing
> the undo path (otherwise it's just triggered as a side effect of
> closing a file descriptor). I personally find that having symmetrical
> "do" and "undo" operations helps me thinking precisely about how to
> manage concurency. But that's probably a matter of preference. And that
> can even be done without exposing the "undo" operation to user space
> (it's just more difficult to test).
>
> Anyway, that was just a suggestion. I have no strong opinion.
Thanks for clarifying the point -- I agree with you about the "undo"
operation helping to expose race conditions.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists