From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 3/3] switchdev: introduce deferred variants
 of obj_add/del helpers
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:44:51 +0200
Message-ID: <20151008144451.GN2186@nanopsycho.orion>
References: <1444242652-17260-1-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us>
 <1444242652-17260-4-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us>
 <CAJ3xEMhEupHZvdQfBucemQwyjtQUcwwc5D5MhYqpctJGqtcTsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151008082858.GC2186@nanopsycho.orion>
 <20151008130910.GJ2186@nanopsycho.orion>
 <CAJ3xEMjq7bXCrWpHuZV5W8VZxYJX-60=UPW=QjbVUtjrJ9e-RQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151008132541.GK2186@nanopsycho.orion>
 <CAJ3xEMhiqfbQRYbAaY5Lxs3oo-XqLQmokNTkXP4qYaocMNZZkw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, idosch@mellanox.com,
	Elad Raz <eladr@mellanox.com>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@gmail.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	john fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
To: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com ([209.85.212.181]:33363 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751565AbbJHOox (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:44:53 -0400
Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so31951753wic.0
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 07:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJ3xEMhiqfbQRYbAaY5Lxs3oo-XqLQmokNTkXP4qYaocMNZZkw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 04:41:43PM CEST, gerlitz.or@gmail.com wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>> Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:21:44PM CEST, gerlitz.or@gmail.com wrote:
>>>On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>> Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:28:58AM CEST, jiri@resnulli.us wrote:
>>>>>Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 08:45:58AM CEST, gerlitz.or@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@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?

Yes they are. Those are those places where deferred variants need to be
called.

>
>> 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.