Hi All,
This is about one of field in struct cpuhp_step
* @skip_onerr: Do not invoke the functions on error rollback
* Will go away once the notifiers are gone
bool skip_onerr;
Why this field was introduced, can anyone explain the history behind ?
As i don't see it being set from anywhere
If it is specifically was dependent on notifiers, did we missed to
remove it as the notifiers are gone or the usecase still there?
And If it is still valid, in what scenario i would not want my callback
to be called in rollback path?
Thanks,
Mukesh
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is about one of field in struct cpuhp_step
>
> * @skip_onerr: Do not invoke the functions on error rollback
> * Will go away once the notifiers are gone
> bool skip_onerr;
>
> Why this field was introduced, can anyone explain the history behind ? As i
> don't see it being set from anywhere
>
> If it is specifically was dependent on notifiers, did we missed to remove it
> as the notifiers are gone or the usecase still there?
As the comment says....
On 8/21/2018 7:27 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> This is about one of field in struct cpuhp_step
>>
>> * @skip_onerr: Do not invoke the functions on error rollback
>> * Will go away once the notifiers are gone
>> bool skip_onerr;
>>
>> Why this field was introduced, can anyone explain the history behind ? As i
>> don't see it being set from anywhere
>>
>> If it is specifically was dependent on notifiers, did we missed to remove it
>> as the notifiers are gone or the usecase still there?
> As the comment says....
Thanks for your reply
Sorry, for further question but i did not get the comment ..did you
mean, we can remove this from the structure as notifier are
not their now. ?
Also if you are aware with the history, can you tell , why would i want
to avoid a call in undo_cpu_up path?
Thanks,
Mukesh
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> On 8/21/2018 7:27 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > If it is specifically was dependent on notifiers, did we missed to remove
> > > it as the notifiers are gone or the usecase still there?
> > As the comment says....
>
> Thanks for your reply
> Sorry, for further question but i did not get the comment ..did you mean, we
> can remove this from the structure as notifier are not their now. ?
Yes, that's why the comment for that member says: Remove after conversion.
> Also if you are aware with the history, can you tell , why would i want to
> avoid a call in undo_cpu_up path?
Because the notifiers worked completely differently. Go back in the
git history where the initial conversion from notifiers to the state
machine happened.
Thanks,
tglx