On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com
> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran
> <vaishnaviprabaka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, I did realize on further reading the patch and what led to the
> > confusion is that in the 3rd patch , updated documentation(copied below)
> > still says that reading from a descriptor opened with INV_WRITE is
> possible.
> > I think we need some correction here to reflect the modified code
> behavior.
> >
> > +     or other transactions.  Reading from a descriptor opened with
> > +     <symbol>INV_WRITE</symbol> or <symbol>INV_READ</> <literal>|</>
> > +     <symbol>INV_WRITE</symbol> returns data that reflects all writes of
> > +     other committed transactions as well as writes of the current
> > +     transaction.
> Indeed, you are right. There is an error here. This should read as
> "INV_READ | INV_WRITE" only. Using "INV_WRITE" implies that reads
> cannot happen.
Thanks for correcting.

I moved the cf entry to "ready for committer", and though my vote is
for keeping
the existing API behavior with write implying read, I let the committer
decide whether the following behavior change is Ok or not.
"Reading from a large-object descriptor opened with INV_WRITE is NOT

Thanks & Regards,
Fujitsu Australia.

Reply via email to