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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
