On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran > <vaishnaviprabaka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, I did realize on further reading the patch and what led to the > > confusion is that in the 3rd patch , updated documentation(copied below) > > still says that reading from a descriptor opened with INV_WRITE is > possible. > > I think we need some correction here to reflect the modified code > behavior. > > > > + or other transactions. Reading from a descriptor opened with > > + <symbol>INV_WRITE</symbol> or <symbol>INV_READ</> <literal>|</> > > + <symbol>INV_WRITE</symbol> returns data that reflects all writes of > > + other committed transactions as well as writes of the current > > + transaction. > > Indeed, you are right. There is an error here. This should read as > "INV_READ | INV_WRITE" only. Using "INV_WRITE" implies that reads > cannot happen. > > Thanks for correcting. I moved the cf entry to "ready for committer", and though my vote is for keeping the existing API behavior with write implying read, I let the committer decide whether the following behavior change is Ok or not. "Reading from a large-object descriptor opened with INV_WRITE is NOT possible" Thanks & Regards, Vaishnavi Fujitsu Australia.
