From: Tom Parkin <tparkin@katalix.com>
To: Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, jchapman@katalix.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] add ppp_generic ioctl to bridge channels
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 12:12:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201117121223.GA4640@katalix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201115115959.GD11274@linux.home>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1284 bytes --]
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.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-17 12:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-06 18:16 [RFC PATCH 0/2] add ppp_generic ioctl to bridge channels Tom Parkin
2020-11-06 18:16 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] ppp: add PPPIOCBRIDGECHAN ioctl Tom Parkin
2020-11-09 23:24 ` Guillaume Nault
2020-11-10 12:04 ` Tom Parkin
2020-11-15 16:28 ` Guillaume Nault
2020-11-17 12:26 ` Tom Parkin
2020-11-17 14:06 ` Guillaume Nault
2020-11-06 18:16 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] docs: update ppp_generic.rst to describe ioctl PPPIOCBRIDGECHAN Tom Parkin
2020-11-09 22:51 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] add ppp_generic ioctl to bridge channels Guillaume Nault
2020-11-10 11:54 ` Tom Parkin
2020-11-15 11:59 ` Guillaume Nault
2020-11-17 12:12 ` Tom Parkin [this message]
2020-11-09 23:52 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-11-10 9:28 ` Guillaume Nault
2020-11-10 12:42 ` Tom Parkin
2020-11-10 15:02 ` Guillaume Nault
2020-11-10 16:47 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-11-17 12:54 ` Tom Parkin
2020-11-17 14:17 ` Guillaume Nault
2020-11-17 16:52 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-11-18 20:24 ` Guillaume Nault
2020-11-20 1:17 ` Jakub Kicinski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201117121223.GA4640@katalix.com \
--to=tparkin@katalix.com \
--cc=gnault@redhat.com \
--cc=jchapman@katalix.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).