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

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel