Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] docs: add DIRECTORY_PART specification do xenstore protocol doc

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 08/05/17 13:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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 ?

Using transactions instead will work, of course. Otherwise transaction
handling would be broken.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel