Juergen Gross writes ("Re: [PATCH 2/3] docs: add DIRECTORY_PART specification
do xenstore protocol doc"):
> On 08/05/17 12:09, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The "generation count" is not defined anywhere else in this protocol
> > spec, so shouldn't be referred to here without definition. We should
> > explicitly state whether using a transaction is sufficient to ensure
> > that this check will never fail.
>
> As the generation count is if no interest anywhere else in this protocol
> I don't see why the definition given in parentheses isn't enough.
I think it's rather inexplicit. How about if I propose an
alternative ?
> The solution with <gencnt> was explicitly demanded in order to _not_
> have to use transactions. So referring to transactions now seems to be
> counterproductive.
The question is whether a client can use transactions instead. Your
current wording seems to leave this question open.
Do you have an opinion about the answer this question ?
Thanks,
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
