Re: [patch] only update dcache after write succeeds

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>]

Doug Evans wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Michael Snyder<msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
>>> IOW, if some target method does return > 0, then the write succeeded,
>>> right?
>>> Are there different kinds of "success" in effect here?
>> Well, maybe only in our case.  ;-)
>>
>> If nobody else has any worries about it, I'm OK with it.
>>
>> ----
>> * In our case (process record), it's a bad thing for the target
>> beneath to be called after the user has said "no".
> 
> Righto.
> But that seems like a separate issue (albeit one that collides with
> dcache here).
> We need a way for a target to say "I'm not handling this, and neither
> can you." :-)
> AIUI, right now it's done by punting with error (which doesn't seem
> all that bad for the particular case at hand).
> The alternative is to extend the error return values to mean different
> things, but I'm guessing we're not in a rush to do that.
> 
> If you like, I don't mind a workaround where we invalidate lines just
> written to instead of updating them.

I'm good with what you've got.  ;-)