Hi Rob, Nuno, (adding cc: Alan) You just applied the patch at the root of this email thread. Please either revert it and accept the alternate that Nuno suggests below, or if you do not want to follow that path, then Nuno please add a follow on patch that does what you suggest below. -Frank On 4/5/22 02:19, Nuno Sá wrote: > On Mon, 2022-04-04 at 13:10 -0500, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 4/4/22 02:40, Nuno Sá wrote: >>> We should not break overlay notifications on NOTIFY_OK otherwise we >>> might >>> break on the first fragment. As NOTIFY_OK is not zero, we need to >>> account for that when looking for errors. >> >> It's been a long time since I've looked at notifiers, it will take me >> some time to >> review this. >> >> -Frank >> >>> > > Yeah, it was also my first time looking at of dynamic code. But it just > didn't felt right to stop fragmment notifications if someone returns > NOTIFY_OK. In fact, I'm starting to think that even if someone wants to > NOTIFY_STOP on the current fragment, that should not mean we should not > send notifications for the remaining ones. So, maybe the right patch is > actually something like: > > ret = blocking_notifier_call_chain() > if (notifier_to_errno(ret)) > return notifier_to_errno(ret); > > This would also be more in line (not totally identical) with > '__of_changeset_revert_notify()'. > > - Nuno Sá > >> >> >
