Jürgen Groß writes ("Re: [PATCH 1/2] tools/xenstore: Do not abort xenstore-ls if a
node disappears while iterating"):
On 19.03.20 21:40, David Woodhouse wrote:
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
...
For the specific case of ENOENT it seems reasonable to declare that,
but for the timing, we might as well just not have seen that node at
all when calling xs_directory() for the parent. By ignoring the error,
we give acceptable output.
Thanks.
Have you thought about the possibility to do the complete handling in a
single transaction? This would ensure a complete consistent picture
from the time the operation has started. Any inconsistency should be
reported as an error then.
I think this would be a good idea (not least because it would mean
that callers of xenstore-ls wouldn't see inconsistent data) but I
think it would be an enhancement.
For now, for David's original patch:
Reviewed-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
If and when we introduce a transaction, David's 1/ should be reverted
as indeed then even ENOENT would indicate some kind of serious
problem.
