Re: [patch] Minor PAGG attach/detach semantic change for 2.6.11

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 09:33:01AM -0500, Erik Jacobson wrote:
> Kingsley - my first attempt skipped the list, sorry.
> 
> > While testing the propagation of pagg_attach errors to fork() I
> > noticed that the detach callback is called again for the client
> 
> I'm sorry it's taking a while for me to get back to you.
> I had kicked your patch around to a couple people internally and
> I think we want to investigate the error path more before we
> take it as part of the PAGG patch.
> 
> Does anybody else on the list have thoughts on this change?
> 
> Thanks for the submission. I'd like to do a bit more research.
> 
> > responsible for the error.  Perhaps you may have a different opinion
> > on this, but IMHO this is unnecessary as the client passing the
> > failure error up should have already cleaned up any data in its pagg
> > structure during its attach callback.
> > 
> > I've atttached a patch that applies (with some fuzz) correctly to
> > 2.6.11 that avoids this unncessary call to the client's detach
> > callback.  Please consider applying.
> > 
> > Thanks, 
> > -- 
> > 		Kingsley

Hi Eric,

I've just been trawling through mail again and realised that I simply
replied to your first mail that skipped the list too ;)

Anyway, has there been any progress on this patch?

Thanks,

-- 
		Kingsley