On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 16:04, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:30:02 +0800 Xiao Liang wrote:
> > Since commit 1bf70e6c3a53 ("tools/net/ynl: improve async notification
> > handling"), check_ntf() would block indefinitely if there's no messages.
> > In some cases we want to set a limit on waiting time. This patch adds
> > max_reties parameter check_ntf(), and makes it stop when no message is
> > recievied in that number of consecutive retries.
>
> Looking at 1bf70e6c3a53 again I wonder if we should revert it, sort of,
> and add its logic back as a new function called poll_nft?
>
> The thing is C YNL has check_ntf too - ynl_ntf_check() and it has the
> old semantics. Would be nice for similarly named functions to behave
> the same across languages.
>
> WDYT Donald? Sorry for not thinking about this earlier.
Yes, that makes sense. I didn't realise the C lib had an equivalent.
Adding a poll_ntf() that calls check_ntf() internally will actually be
a bit cleaner overall.
It's then a question of whether we need the repeat logic in poll_ntf()
because it's always possible to use check_ntf() in your own repeat
logic. Either way, I'd prefer not to call the parameter "max_retries"
because semantically I don't think we are retrying - it is a count of
how many times to repeat the poll. Thoughts? Should it be a "duration"
parameter?
> Xiao, feel free to submit this separately from the series.
