<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:manu@netbsd.org" target="_blank">manu@netbsd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">Anand Avati <<a href="mailto:anand.avati@gmail.com">anand.avati@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Not "instead", but along. syncproc is a pthread which executes synctasks<br>
> (and syncops). So a synctask_set() performed in one syncproc will not be<br>
> obtained via synctask_get() performed in another (original) syncproc. So<br>
> instead of NULL we could get an unexpected (and maybe free'd/corrupted?)<br>
> synctask pointer. If we either avoid bouncing of synctasks between<br>
> syncprocs, or limit syncenv to a single syncproc, then your patch will be<br>
> "complete".<br>
<br>
</div>I must set SYNCENV_PROC_MIN to 1 as well, right?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Right!</div><div><br></div><div>Avati</div><div> </div></div>